Re: [patch 0/9] Critical Mempools

[Christoph Lameter <clameter@engr.sgi.com>]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Matthew Dobson wrote:

> > All subsystems will now get more complicated by having to add this 
> > emergency functionality?
> 
> Certainly not.  Only subsystems that want to use emergency pools will get
> more complicated.  If you have a suggestion as to how to implement a
> similar feature that is completely transparent to its users, I would *love*

I thought the earlier __GFP_CRITICAL was a good idea.

> to hear it.  I have tried to keep the changes to implement this
> functionality to a minimum.  As the patches currently stand, existing slab
> allocator and mempool users can continue using these subsystems without
> modification.

The patches are extensive and the required changes to subsystems in order 
to use these pools are also extensive.

> > There surely must be a better way than revising all subsystems for 
> > critical allocations.
> Again, I could not find any way to implement this functionality without
> forcing the users of the functionality to make some, albeit very minor,
> changes.  Specific suggestions are more than welcome! :)

Gfp flag? Better memory reclaim functionality?

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>