[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AED9EB4.5080601@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2009 09:44:04 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
CC: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, stable@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Sven Geggus <lists@...hsschwanzdomain.de>,
Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@...il.com>,
Tobias Oetiker <tobi@...iker.ch>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@...net.com>,
kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] page allocator: Do not allow interrupts to use ALLOC_HARDER
On 11/01/2009 02:35 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>> I believe it would be better to simply remove it.
>>
>> You are against trying to give the realtime tasks a best effort
>> advantage at memory allocation?
>
> Yes. Those memory reserves were for kernel, GPF_ATOMIC and stuff. Now
> realtime tasks are allowed to eat into them. That feels wrong.
>
> "realtime" tasks are not automatically "more important".
>
>> Realtime apps often *have* to allocate memory on the kernel side,
>> because they use network system calls, etc...
>
> So what? As soon as they do that, they lose any guarantees, anyway.
They might lose the absolute guarantee, but that's no reason
not to give it our best effort!
--
All rights reversed.
--
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