lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [TEST] page tables filling non-highmem
Date
On February 18, 2002 01:27 pm, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Agreed, this is why I fighted with Linus and Marcelo trying to convince
> them not to reintroduce the loop crap into the allocator that leads to
> all sort of oom deadlocks because we lack the knowledge on the amount of
> freeable pages (I even re-read the emails about such stuff in the thread
> "VM tweaks" to be sure I was remembering right). OTOH, I really cannot
> complain, they included so much stuff from my tree that even if we
> disagreed on something at the end I don't mind :). And this is probably
> also why I don't like very much to restart those threads about oom
> deadlocks, I know my way is the only right way (i.e. non deadlock prone)
> possible, and I live with it just fine.
>
> The only way we can learn if a page or a mapping is freeable or not, is
> by trying to free it and by checking if we failed or not. We cannot know
> in another manner, only checking the size of the caches or the amount of
> the swap still unused is totally meaningless and broken. That's
> unfortunate but that's how all linux kernels I know of works, and what I
> did in my tree at the moment is the only possible way to avoid deadlocks
> without having to do a major rework on the accounting side.

Could you describe your page table deadlock-avoidance algorithm in more
detail please?

--
Daniel
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:24    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans