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

On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Alan Cox wrote:

> Unless Im missing something here think about this case
>
> 2 active processes, no swap
>
> #1 #2
> kmalloc 32K kmalloc 16K
> OK OK
> kmalloc 16K kmalloc 32K
> block block
>
> so GFP_KERNEL has to be able to fail - it can wait for I/O in some
> cases with care, but when we have no pages left something has to give

you are right, i agree that synchronous OOM for higher-order allocations
must be preserved (just like ATOMIC allocations). But the overwhelming
majority of allocations is done at page granularity.

with multi-page allocations and the need for physically contiguous
buffers, the problem cannot be solved.

Ingo

-
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 12:45    [W:0.259 / U:1.556 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site