Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: [TEST] page tables filling non-highmem | Date | Mon, 18 Feb 2002 13:59:42 +0100 |
| |
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/
| |