On Thursday October 1, rientjes@google.com wrote:

On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Suresh Jayaraman wrote:

quoted

From: Peter Zijlstra <redacted> 

There is a small race between the procfs caller and the memory hotplug caller
of setup_per_zone_wmarks(). Not a big deal, but the next patch will add yet
another caller. Time to close the gap.

By "next patch," you mean "mm: emegency pool" (patch 08/31)?

:-)  It is always safer to say "a subsequent patch", isn't it....

If so, can't you eliminate var_free_mutex entirely from that patch and 
take min_free_lock in adjust_memalloc_reserve() instead?

adjust_memalloc_reserve does a test alloc/free cycle under a lock.
That cannot be done under a spin-lock, it must be a mutex.
So I don't think you can eliminate var_free_mutex.

Thanks,
NeilBrown

 [ __adjust_memalloc_reserve() would call __setup_per_zone_wmarks()
   under lock instead, now. ]

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>