Re: [PATCH 05/10] vmscan: Synchrounous lumpy reclaim use lock_page() instead trylock_page()

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

> On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 12:04:48 +0900
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon,  6 Sep 2010 11:47:28 +0100
> > Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > With synchrounous lumpy reclaim, there is no reason to give up to reclaim
> > > pages even if page is locked. This patch uses lock_page() instead of
> > > trylock_page() in this case.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> Ah......but can't this change cause dead lock ??

Yes, this patch is purely crappy. please drop. I guess I was poisoned
by poisonous mushroom of Mario Bros.




--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/