On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 17:27 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> > If I'm reading this patch right then seems like you are making page
> > allocations to fail w/o (for example) trying to purge some pages from
> > the page cache belonging to this container. Or is that reclaim going to
> > come later?
>
> charged kernel objects can't be _reclaimed_. how do you propose
> to reclaim tasks page tables or files or task struct or vma or etc.?
I agree that kernel objects cann't be reclaimed easily. But what you
are proposing is also not right. Returning failure w/o doing any
reclaim on pages (that are reclaimable) is not useful. And this is why
I asked, is this change going to be part of next set of patches (as
current set of patches are only tracking kernel usage).
-rohit
-
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]
