[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: the new VMt

    On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:

    > Yes, I'm inclined to agree. Or at least not disagree. I'm more arguing
    > that the order itself may not be the most interesting thing, and that
    > I don't think the balancing has to take the order of the allocation
    > into account - because it should be equivalent to just tell that it's
    > a soft allocation (whether though the current !__GFP_HIGH or through a
    > new __GFP_SOFT with slightly different logic).

    yep, and there is another problem with pure order-based distinction: if i
    do kmalloc(5k), and write the code on Alpha and expect it to never fail,
    shouldnt i expect this to never fail on x86 as well? Along with the fork()
    failure. __GFP_SOFT solves this all very nicely - the *allocator* decides
    what allocation policy to follow. Great!


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:39    [W:0.021 / U:5.060 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site