On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 03:32:14PM -0800, Matthew Dobson wrote:
> > I thought the earlier __GFP_CRITICAL was a good idea.
>
> Well, I certainly could have used that feedback a month ago! ;) The
> general response to that patchset was overwhelmingly negative. Yours is
> the first vote in favor of that approach, that I'm aware of.
Personally, I'm more in favour of a proper reservation system. mempools
are pretty inefficient. Reservations have useful properties, too -- one
could reserve memory for a critical process to use, but allow the system
to use that memory for easy to reclaim caches or to help with memory
defragmentation (more free pages really helps the buddy allocator).
> > Gfp flag? Better memory reclaim functionality?
>
> Well, I've got patches that implement the GFP flag approach, but as I
> mentioned above, that was poorly received. Better memory reclaim is a
> broad and general approach that I agree is useful, but will not necessarily
> solve the same set of problems (though it would likely lessen the severity
> somewhat).
Which areas are the priorities for getting this functionality into?
Networking over particular sockets? A GFP_ flag would plug into the current
network stack trivially, as sockets already have a field to store the memory
allocation flags.
-ben
--
"Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry to interrupt, but the police are here
and they've asked us to stop the party." Don't Email: <[email protected]>.
-
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]
