Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core

Andrew Morton wrote:

- We expect that the lots-of-dirty-anon-memory-over-swap-over-network

scenario might still cause deadlocks.

  I assert that this can be solved by putting swap on local disks.  Peter
  asserts that this isn't acceptable due to disk unreliability.  I point
  out that local disk reliability can be increased via MD, all goes quiet.

  A good exposition which helps us to understand whether and why a
  significant proportion of the target user base still wishes to do
  swap-over-network would be useful.

You cannot put disks in many models of blade servers.

At all.

--
What is important?  What you want to be true, or what is true?
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
    • From: Andre Tomt <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
    • From: Thomas Graf <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
    • From: Rik van Riel <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
    • From: Daniel Phillips <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
    • From: David Miller <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
    • From: Daniel Phillips <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
    • From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
    • From: Daniel Phillips <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
    • From: Daniel Phillips <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
    • From: Daniel Phillips <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
    • From: Daniel Phillips <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH 2/4] do_sched_setscheduler: don't take tasklist_lock
• Next by Date: [PATCH 4/4] sched_setscheduler: fix? policy checks
• Previous by thread: Re: Network receive stall avoidance (was [PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core)
• Next by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]