Re: [RFC 0/3] Recursive reclaim (on __PF_MEMALLOC)

[Andi Kleen]

Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> Christoph's suggestion to set min_free_kbytes to 20% is ridiculous - nor
> does it solve all deadlocks :-(

A minimum enforced reclaimable non dirty threshold wouldn't be
that ridiculous though. So the memory could be used, just not
for dirty data.

His patchkit essentially turns the GFP_ATOMIC requirements 
from free to easily reclaimable. I see that as an general improvement.

I remember sct talked about this many years ago and it's still
a good idea.

-Andi
-
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/