[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    [W:0.020 / U:7.452 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site