[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200706091147.24705.ak@suse.de>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 11:47:23 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Keshavamurthy, Anil S" <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...e.de, muli@...ibm.com,
asit.k.mallick@...el.com, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com,
arjan@...ux.intel.com, ashok.raj@...el.com, shaohua.li@...el.com,
davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [Intel-IOMMU 02/10] Library routine for pre-allocat pool handling
> > Now there is a anon dirty limit since a few releases, but I'm not
> > fully convinced it solves the problem completely.
>
> A gut feeling or is there more?
Lots of other subsystem can allocate a lot of memory
and they usually don't cooperate and have similar dirty limit concepts.
So you could run out of usable memory anyways and then have a similar
issue.
For example a flood of network packets could always steal your
GFP_ATOMIC pools very quickly in the background (gigabit or 10gig
can transfer a lot of data very quickly)
Also iirc try_to_free_pages() is not completely fair and might fail
under extreme load for some requesters.
Not requiring memory allocation for any IO would be certainly safer.
Anyways, it's a theoretic question because you can't sleep in
there anyways unless something drastic changes in the driver interfaces.
-Andi
-
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