On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> However I really have an aversion to the near enough is good enough way of
> thinking. Especially when it comes to fundamental deadlocks in the VM. I
> don't know whether Peter's patch is completely clean yet, but fixing the
> fundamentally broken code has my full support.
Uhh. There are already numerous other issues why the VM is failing that is
independent of Peter's approach.
> I hate it that there are theoretical bugs still left even if they would
> be hit less frequently than hardware failure. And that people are really
> happy to put even more of these things in :(
Theoretical bugs? Depends on one's creativity to come up with them I
guess. So far we do not even get around to address the known issues and
this multi subsystem patch has the potential of creating more.
> Anyway, as you know I like your patch and if that gives Peter a little
> more breathing space then it's a good thing. But I really hope he doesn't
> give up on it, and it should be merged one day.
Using the VM to throttle networking is a pretty bad thing because it
assumes single critical user of memory. There are other consumers of
memory and if you have a load that depends on other things than networking
then you should not kill the other things that want memory.
-
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/
[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]
