[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070911074125.GA27679@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:41:26 +0200
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: Daniel Phillips <phillips@...nq.net>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
dkegel@...gle.com, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Recursive reclaim (on __PF_MEMALLOC)
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 12:29:32PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > Implementation issues aside, the problem is there and I would like to
> > see it fixed regardless if some/most/or all users in practice don't
> > hit it.
>
> I am all for fixing the problem but the solution can be much simpler and
> more universal. F.e. the amount of tcp data in flight may be controlled
> via some limit so that other subsystems can continue to function even if
> we are overwhelmed by network traffic. Peter's approach establishes the
> limit by failing PF_MEMALLOC allocations. If that occurs then other
Can you to propose a solution that is much simpler and more universal?
> subsystems (like the disk, or even fork/exec or memory management
> allocation) will no longer operate since their allocations no longer
> succeed which will make the system even more fragile and may lead to
> subsequent failures.
You're saying we shouldn't fix an out of memory deadlocks because
that might result in ENOMEM errors being returned, rather than the
system locking up?
-
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