Hi,
On Tuesday, 12 of April 2005 01:51, Pavel Machek wrote:
]--snip--[
> > Since the refrigerator() call is in place in the main xfsbufd loop,
> > I suspect we're hitting that second case here, where a low memory
> > situation is resulting in someone attempting to wakeup xfsbufd --
> > I'm not sure if this is the right way to check if we're in that
> > state, but does this patch help? (it would certainly prevent the
> > spurious wakeups, but only if the caller has PF_FREEZE set - will
> > that be the case here?)
>
> I should take some sleep now, so I can't test the patch, but I don't
> think it will help. If someone has PF_FREEZE set, he should be in
> refrigerator.
Or he was in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE while processes were being frozen. :-)
Greets,
Rafael
--
- Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?
- That depends a good deal on where you want to get to.
-- Lewis Carroll "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
