From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 19:03:46 +0200 (CEST) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: the new VMt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Rik van Riel , Andrea Arcangeli , Andi Kleen , Alan Cox , Marcelo Tosatti , Roger Larsson , MM mailing list , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Yes, I'm inclined to agree. Or at least not disagree. I'm more arguing > that the order itself may not be the most interesting thing, and that > I don't think the balancing has to take the order of the allocation > into account - because it should be equivalent to just tell that it's > a soft allocation (whether though the current !__GFP_HIGH or through a > new __GFP_SOFT with slightly different logic). yep, and there is another problem with pure order-based distinction: if i do kmalloc(5k), and write the code on Alpha and expect it to never fail, shouldnt i expect this to never fail on x86 as well? Along with the fork() failure. __GFP_SOFT solves this all very nicely - the *allocator* decides what allocation policy to follow. Great! Ingo -- 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/