linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] VM deadlock prevention -v5

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: <44EF1F7A.3080001@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:04:10 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Indan Zupancic <indan@....nu>,
	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>,
	Daniel Phillips <phillips@...gle.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [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?

No.

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 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/