On Thu, 17 May 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > I am weirdly confused by these patches. Among other things you told me
> > that the performance does not matter since its never (or rarely) being
> > used (why do it then?).
>
> When we are very low on memory and do access the reserves by means of
> ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS, we want to avoid processed that are not entitled to
> use such memory from running away with the little we have.
For me low memory conditions are node or zone specific and may be
particular to certain allocation constraints. For some reason you have
this simplified global picture in mind.
The other statement is weird. It is bad to fail allocation attempts, they
may lead to a process being terminated. Memory should be reclaimed
earlier to avoid these situations.
-
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]
