From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] make slab gfp fair From: Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: References: <20070514131904.440041502@chello.nl> <1179385718.27354.17.camel@twins> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 19:52:15 +0200 Message-Id: <1179424335.2925.5.camel@lappy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Thomas Graf , David Miller , Andrew Morton , Daniel Phillips , Pekka Enberg , Matt Mackall List-ID: 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, 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