lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: the new VMt
Hi,

On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 12:34:56PM -0600, yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote:

> > > Process 1,2 and 3 all start allocating 20 pages
> > > now 57 pages are locked up in non-swapable kernel space and the system deadlocks OOM.
> >
> > Or go the beancounter route: process 1 asks "can I pin 20 pages", gets
> > told "yes", and goes allocating them, blocking as necessary until it
>
> So you have a "pre-allocation allocator"? Leads to interesting and hard to detect
> bugs with old code that does not pre-allocate or with code that incorrectly pre-allocates
> or that blocks on something unrelated

Right, but if the alternative is spurious ENOMEM when we can satisfy
all of the pending requests just as long as they are serialised, is
this a problem?

If you want, wrap it in a "get_free_pagev" call which returns a vector
of pointers to free pages, doing whatever accounting is needed. You
don't have to push all of it to the callers.

However, you just can't escape from the fact that on low memory
machinnes, we *need* beancounter-style accounting of pinned pages or
we'll be in Deep Trouble (TM). We already have nasty DoS situations
which are embarassingly easy to reproduce. If we need such
beancounter protection, AND such protection can prevent the situation
you describe, then do we need to go looking for another way of
achieving the same protection?

--Stephen
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:39    [W:0.388 / U:1.344 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site