[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/4] VM deadlock prevention -v5
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> The basic premises is that network sockets serving the VM need undisturbed
>> functionality in the face of severe memory shortage.
>> This patch-set provides the framework to provide this.
> Hmmm.. Is it not possible to avoid the memory pools by
> guaranteeing that a certain number of page is easily reclaimable?


You need to guarantee that the memory is not gobbled up by
another subsystem, but remains available for use by *this*
subsystem. Otherwise you could still deadlock.

What is important? What you want to be true, or what is true?
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: 2006-08-25 18:07    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean