[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1179424335.2925.5.camel@lappy>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 19:52:15 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Phillips <phillips@...gle.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] make slab gfp fair
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 10:29 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > I'm really not seeing why you're making such a fuzz about it; normally
> > when you push the system this hard we're failing allocations left right
> > and center too. Its just that the block IO path has some mempools which
> > allow it to write out some (swap) pages and slowly get back to sanity.
>
> I am weirdly confused by these patches. Among other things you told me
> that the performance does not matter since its never (or rarely) being
> used (why do it then?).
When we are very low on memory and do access the reserves by means of
ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS, we want to avoid processed that are not entitled to
use such memory from running away with the little we have.
That is the whole and only point; restrict memory allocated under
ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS to those processes that are entitled to it.
-
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