Re: [PATCH 0/4] VM deadlock prevention -v5

[Rik van Riel]

Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > The basic premises is that network sockets serving the VM need undisturbed
> > functionality in the face of severe memory shortage.
> >
> > This patch-set provides the framework to provide this.
>
> Hmmm.. Is it not possible to avoid the memory pools by 
> guaranteeing that a certain number of page is easily reclaimable?

No.

You need to guarantee that the memory is not gobbled up by
another subsystem, but remains available for use by *this*
subsystem.  Otherwise you could still deadlock.

--
What is important?  What you want to be true, or what is true?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/