From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 10:59:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] make slab gfp fair In-Reply-To: <1179424335.2925.5.camel@lappy> Message-ID: References: <20070514131904.440041502@chello.nl> <1179385718.27354.17.camel@twins> <1179424335.2925.5.camel@lappy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Peter Zijlstra 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, 17 May 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > 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. For me low memory conditions are node or zone specific and may be particular to certain allocation constraints. For some reason you have this simplified global picture in mind. The other statement is weird. It is bad to fail allocation attempts, they may lead to a process being terminated. Memory should be reclaimed earlier to avoid these situations. -- 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