| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 22:17:34 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> To: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de> cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Ethan Solomita <solo@...gle.com>, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, linux-mm@...ck.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Paul Jackson <pj@....com>, Dave Chinner <dgc@....com> Subject: Re: [RFC 0/8] Cpuset aware writeback On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Neil Brown wrote: > md/raid doesn't cause any problems here. It preallocates enough to be > sure that it can always make forward progress. In general the entire > block layer from generic_make_request down can always successfully > write a block out in a reasonable amount of time without requiring > kmalloc to succeed (with obvious exceptions like loop and nbd which go > back up to a higher layer). Hmmm... I wonder if that could be generalized. A device driver could make a reservation by increasing min_free_kbytes? Additional drivers in a chain could make additional reservations in such a way that enough memory is set aside for the worst case? > The network stack is of course a different (much harder) problem. An NFS solution is possible without solving the network stack issue? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists