Matthew wrote:
> I'm glad we're on the same page now. :) And yes, adding four "duplicate"
> *_mempool allocators was not my first choice, but I couldn't easily see a
> better way.
I hope the following comments aren't too far off target.
I too am inclined to prefer the __GFP_CRITICAL approach over this.
That or Andrea's suggestion, which except for a free hook, was entirely
outside of the page_alloc.c code paths. Or Alan's suggested revival
of the old code to drop non-critical network patches in duress.
I am tempted to think you've taken an approach that raised some
substantial looking issues:
* how to tell the system when to use the emergency pool
* this doesn't really solve the problem (network can still starve)
* it wastes memory most of the time
* it doesn't really improve on GFP_ATOMIC
and just added another substantial looking issue:
* it entwines another thread of complexity and performance costs
into the important memory allocation code path.
Progress in the wrong direction ;).
> With large machines, especially as
> those large machines' workloads are more and more likely to be partitioned
> with something like cpusets, you want to be able to specify where you want
> your reserve pool to come from.
Cpusets is about performance, not correctness. Anytime I get cornered
in the cpuset code, I prefer violating the cpuset containment, over
serious system failure.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[email protected]> 1.925.600.0401
-
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]
