Re: [PATCH 02/10] mm: system wide ALLOC_NO_WATERMARK

[Daniel Phillips]

On 8/10/07, Christoph Lameter <clameter@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> The idea of adding code to deal with "I have no memory" situations
> in a kernel that based on have as much memory as possible in use at all
> times is plainly the wrong approach.

No.  It is you who have read the patches wrongly, because what you
imply here is exactly backwards.

> If you need memory then memory needs
> to be reclaimed. That is the basic way that things work

Wrong.  A naive reading of your comment would suggest you do not
understand how PF_MEMALLOC works, and that it has worked that way from
day one (well, since long before I arrived) and that we just do more
of the same, except better.

> and following that
> through brings about a much less invasive solution without all the issues
> that the proposed solution creates.

What issues?  Test case please, a real one that you have run yourself.
 Please, no more theoretical issues that cannot be demonstrated in
practice because they do not exist.

Regards,

Daniel
-
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/