From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 23:38:47 +0100 (CET) From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.2.14 VM fix #3 In-Reply-To: <14476.42622.777454.521474@dukat.scot.redhat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Stephen C. Tweedie" Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , Alan Cox , Linux MM , Linux Kernel List-ID: On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:34:14 +0100 (CET), Andrea Arcangeli > said: > > > Sorry but I will never agree with your patch. The GFP_KERNEL change is not > > something for 2.2.x. We have major deadlocks in getblk for example and you > > may trigger tham more easily forbidding GFP_MID allocations to > > succeed. > > Agreed, definitely. OTOH, 2.2.1{3,4} have seen deadlocks because GFP_KERNEL allocations had eaten up all of memory and a PF_MEMALLOC allocation couldn't get through. It has also DoSed some servers where the network driver got temporarily confused when a GFP_ATOMIC allocation failed. > > Also killing the low_on_memory will harm performance. You doesn't seems to > > see what such bit (that should be a per-process thing) is good for. > > Also agreed --- removing the per-process flag will just penalise > _all_ processes when we enter thrashing. Except that it never was a per-process flag... (so we didn't lose anything there) regards, Rik -- The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network of people. That is its real strength. -- 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.eu.org/Linux-MM/