From d153ba64450b9371158c6516d6cac120faace44c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Wu Fengguang Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 17:24:21 -0800 Subject: writeback: do uninterruptible sleep in balance_dirty_pages() Using TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE in balance_dirty_pages() seems wrong. If it's going to do that then it must break out if signal_pending(), otherwise it's pretty much guaranteed to degenerate into a busywait loop. Plus we *do* want these processes to appear in D state and to contribute to load average. So it should be TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE. -- Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- mm/page-writeback.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'mm/page-writeback.c') diff --git a/mm/page-writeback.c b/mm/page-writeback.c index b840afa89761..b4edfe7ce06c 100644 --- a/mm/page-writeback.c +++ b/mm/page-writeback.c @@ -563,7 +563,7 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping, break; /* We've done our duty */ } trace_wbc_balance_dirty_wait(&wbc, bdi); - __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); + __set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); io_schedule_timeout(pause); /* -- cgit v1.2.2