Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:18:18 -0800 (PST) | From | Christoph Lameter <> | Subject | Re: [patch 0/9] Critical Mempools |
| |
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Matthew Dobson wrote:
> > All subsystems will now get more complicated by having to add this > > emergency functionality? > > Certainly not. Only subsystems that want to use emergency pools will get > more complicated. If you have a suggestion as to how to implement a > similar feature that is completely transparent to its users, I would *love*
I thought the earlier __GFP_CRITICAL was a good idea.
> to hear it. I have tried to keep the changes to implement this > functionality to a minimum. As the patches currently stand, existing slab > allocator and mempool users can continue using these subsystems without > modification.
The patches are extensive and the required changes to subsystems in order to use these pools are also extensive.
> > There surely must be a better way than revising all subsystems for > > critical allocations. > Again, I could not find any way to implement this functionality without > forcing the users of the functionality to make some, albeit very minor, > changes. Specific suggestions are more than welcome! :)
Gfp flag? Better memory reclaim functionality? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |