From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/4] deadlock prevention core From: Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: <40048.81.207.0.53.1155405282.squirrel@81.207.0.53> References: <20060812141415.30842.78695.sendpatchset@lappy> <20060812141445.30842.47336.sendpatchset@lappy> <44640.81.207.0.53.1155403862.squirrel@81.207.0.53> <1155404697.13508.81.camel@lappy> <40048.81.207.0.53.1155405282.squirrel@81.207.0.53> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 20:08:40 +0200 Message-Id: <1155406120.13508.87.camel@lappy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Indan Zupancic Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Evgeniy Polyakov , Daniel Phillips , Rik van Riel , David Miller List-ID: On Sat, 2006-08-12 at 19:54 +0200, Indan Zupancic wrote: > On Sat, August 12, 2006 19:44, Peter Zijlstra said: > > Euhm, right :-) long comes naturaly when I think about quantities op > > pages. The adjust_memalloc_reserve() argument is an increment, a delta; > > perhaps I should change that to long. > > Maybe, but having 16 TB of reserved memory seems plenty for a while. Oh, for sure, but since it doesn't really matter all that much, I'd rather go for proper. > > Having them separate would allow ajust_memalloc_reserve() to be used by > > other callers too (would need some extra locking). > > True, but currently memalloc_reserve isn't used in a sensible way, > or I'm missing something. Well, I'm somewhat reluctant to stick network related code into mm/, it seems well separated now. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org