linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <44E728E2.4000804@redhat.com>
Date:	Sat, 19 Aug 2006 11:06:10 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
CC:	Daniel Phillips <phillips@...gle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, tgraf@...g.ch,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core

Andrew Morton wrote:

> - We expect that the lots-of-dirty-anon-memory-over-swap-over-network
>   scenario might still cause deadlocks.  
> 
>   I assert that this can be solved by putting swap on local disks.  Peter
>   asserts that this isn't acceptable due to disk unreliability.  I point
>   out that local disk reliability can be increased via MD, all goes quiet.
> 
>   A good exposition which helps us to understand whether and why a
>   significant proportion of the target user base still wishes to do
>   swap-over-network would be useful.

You cannot put disks in many models of blade servers.

At all.

-- 
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 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/