Re: [PATCH 0/4] VM deadlock prevention -v5

Christoph Lameter wrote:

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

The basic premises is that network sockets serving the VM need undisturbed
functionality in the face of severe memory shortage.

This patch-set provides the framework to provide this.

Hmmm.. Is it not possible to avoid the memory pools by guaranteeing that a certain number of page is easily reclaimable?

No.

You need to guarantee that the memory is not gobbled up by
another subsystem, but remains available for use by *this*
subsystem.  Otherwise you could still deadlock.

--
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/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH 0/4] VM deadlock prevention -v5
    • From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 0/4] VM deadlock prevention -v5
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH] sun disk label: fix signed int usage for sector count
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 03/17] BLOCK: Stop fallback_migrate_page() from using page_has_buffers() [try #2]
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 0/4] VM deadlock prevention -v5
• Next by thread: [PATCH] sun disk label: fix signed int usage for sector count
• 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]