From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:24:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [RFC 0/9] Reclaim during GFP_ATOMIC allocs In-Reply-To: <20070816024949.GA16372@wotan.suse.de> Message-ID: References: <20070814153021.446917377@sgi.com> <20070816024949.GA16372@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, dkegel@google.com, Peter Zijlstra , David Miller List-ID: On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > Just to clarify... I can see how recursive reclaim can prevent memory getting > eaten up by reclaim (which thus causes allocations from interrupt handlers to > fail)... > > But this patchset I don't see will do anything to prevent reclaim deadlocks, > right? (because if there is reclaimable memory at hand, then kswapd should > eventually reclaim it). What deadlocks are you thinking about? Reclaim can be run concurrently right now. -- 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