On 8/10/07, Christoph Lameter <[email protected]> wrote:
> The idea of adding code to deal with "I have no memory" situations
> in a kernel that based on have as much memory as possible in use at all
> times is plainly the wrong approach.
No. It is you who have read the patches wrongly, because what you
imply here is exactly backwards.
> If you need memory then memory needs
> to be reclaimed. That is the basic way that things work
Wrong. A naive reading of your comment would suggest you do not
understand how PF_MEMALLOC works, and that it has worked that way from
day one (well, since long before I arrived) and that we just do more
of the same, except better.
> and following that
> through brings about a much less invasive solution without all the issues
> that the proposed solution creates.
What issues? Test case please, a real one that you have run yourself.
Please, no more theoretical issues that cannot be demonstrated in
practice because they do not exist.
Regards,
Daniel
-
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]
