[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] fork() failing

On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > Actually, I guess we could define this to be the same point
> > > where we'd end up freeing memory in order to satisfy our
> > > allocation.
> >
> > Just remember that if we give __GFP_FAIL a "give me memory if its
> > available" meaning we simply can't use it for stuff like pagecache
> > prefetching --- its _too_ fragile.
> IMHO it makes perfect sense, since at this point, one more
> allocation _will_ push us over the limit and let kswapd go
> to work to free up more memory.
> We just need to make sure that the "wake up kswapd and maybe
> help free memory" point is EXACTLY the same as the __GFP_FAIL
> failure point.

Ok, great, that works fine. We can do that for 2.4, no problem.

> Unless off course I'm overlooking something ... in that case
> I'd appreciate it if you could point it out to me ;)

I would just like to have a _good_ scheme for this kind of "lazy
allocations" for 2.5 which can also be used by the page clustering code.

We really don't want the page clustering code to simply use a
"__GFP_FAIL" which fails so easily because we want performance.

Got my point?

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:08    [W:0.057 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site