On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 06:55:46PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> >On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:10:40 -0700 Arjan van de Ven
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>>>Where as resource pool is exactly opposite of mempool, where each
> >>>>time it looks for an object in the pool and if it exist then we
> >>>>return that object else we try to get the memory for OS while
> >>>>scheduling the work to grow the pool objects. In fact, the work
> >>>>is schedule to grow the pool when the low threshold point is hit.
> >>>I realise all that. But I'd have thought that the mempool approach is
> >>>actually better: use the page allocator and only deplete your reserve
> >>>pool
> >>>when the page allocator fails.
> >>the problem with that is that if anything downstream from the iommu
> >>layer ALSO needs memory, we've now eaten up the last free page and
> >>things go splat.
> >
> >If that happens, we still have the mempool reserve to fall back to.
>
> we do, except that we just ate the memory the downstream code would
> use and get ... so THAT can't get any.
Then the downstream ought to be using a mempool?
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
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]
