[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [with-PATCH-really] highmem deadlock removal, balancing & cleanup
On Fri, 25 May 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Oh, also: the logic behind the change of the kmem_cache_reap() - instead
> of making it conditional on the _reverse_ test of what it has historically
> been, why isn't it just completely unconditional? You've basically
> dismissed the only valid reason for it to have been (illogically)
> conditional, so I'd have expected that just _removing_ the test is better
> than reversing it like your patch does..
> No?

The function do_try_to_free_pages() also gets called when we're
only short on inactive pages, but we still have TONS of free
memory. In that case, I don't think we'd actually want to steal
free memory from anyone.

Moving it into the same if() conditional the other memory
freeers are in would make sense, though ...


Linux MM bugzilla:

Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...

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 12:54    [W:0.125 / U:0.508 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site