On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:34:14 +0100 (CET), Andrea Arcangeli
> <andrea@suse.de> said:
>
> > Sorry but I will never agree with your patch. The GFP_KERNEL change is not
> > something for 2.2.x. We have major deadlocks in getblk for example and you
> > may trigger tham more easily forbidding GFP_MID allocations to
> > succeed.
>
> Agreed, definitely.
OTOH, 2.2.1{3,4} have seen deadlocks because GFP_KERNEL
allocations had eaten up all of memory and a PF_MEMALLOC
allocation couldn't get through. It has also DoSed some
servers where the network driver got temporarily confused
when a GFP_ATOMIC allocation failed.
> > Also killing the low_on_memory will harm performance. You doesn't seems to
> > see what such bit (that should be a per-process thing) is good for.
>
> Also agreed --- removing the per-process flag will just penalise
> _all_ processes when we enter thrashing.
Except that it never was a per-process flag...
(so we didn't lose anything there)
regards,
Rik
-- The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network of people. That is its real strength.- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 21:00:13 EST