Re: [patch] writeback daemons

From: Pavel Machek (pavel@suse.cz)
Date: Mon Apr 15 2002 - 17:32:30 EST

Next message: Peter Chubb: "Please disregard my previous email"
Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: link() security"
In reply to: Andrew Morton: "Re: [patch] writeback daemons"
Next in thread: Andrew Morton: "Re: [patch] writeback daemons"
Reply: Andrew Morton: "Re: [patch] writeback daemons"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi!

> > > The number of threads is dynamically managed by a simple
> > > demand-driven algorithm.
> >
> > So... when we are low on free memory, we try to create more threads... Possible
> > deadlock?
>
> Nope. The number of threads is never allowed to fall below two,
> for this very reason.

I thought this was the case. BTW do you need *two* threads for
reliable operation, or is one enough?

-- 
Casualities in World Trade Center: ~3k dead inside the building,
cryptography in U.S.A. and free speech in Czech Republic.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Peter Chubb: "Please disregard my previous email"
Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: link() security"
In reply to: Andrew Morton: "Re: [patch] writeback daemons"
Next in thread: Andrew Morton: "Re: [patch] writeback daemons"
Reply: Andrew Morton: "Re: [patch] writeback daemons"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 15 2002 - 22:00:25 EST