Re: [patch 0/9] Critical Mempools

[Christoph Lameter]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Matthew Dobson wrote:

> > All subsystems will now get more complicated by having to add this 
> > emergency functionality?
> 
> Certainly not.  Only subsystems that want to use emergency pools will get
> more complicated.  If you have a suggestion as to how to implement a
> similar feature that is completely transparent to its users, I would *love*

I thought the earlier __GFP_CRITICAL was a good idea.

> to hear it.  I have tried to keep the changes to implement this
> functionality to a minimum.  As the patches currently stand, existing slab
> allocator and mempool users can continue using these subsystems without
> modification.

The patches are extensive and the required changes to subsystems in order 
to use these pools are also extensive.

> > There surely must be a better way than revising all subsystems for 
> > critical allocations.
> Again, I could not find any way to implement this functionality without
> forcing the users of the functionality to make some, albeit very minor,
> changes.  Specific suggestions are more than welcome! :)

Gfp flag? Better memory reclaim functionality?
-
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/