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

[Christoph Lameter]

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:

> The thing I don't much like about your patches is the addition of more
> of these global reserve type things in the allocators. They kind of
> suck (not your code, just the concept of them in general -- ie. including
> the PF_MEMALLOC reserve). I'd like to eventually reach a model where
> reclaimable memory from a given subsystem is always backed by enough
> resources to be able to reclaim it. What stopped you from going that
> route with the network subsystem? (too much churn, or something
> fundamental?)

That sounds very right aside from the global reserve. A given subsystem 
may exist in multiple instances and serve sub partitions of the system.
F.e. there may be a network card on node 5 and a job running on nodes 3-7
and another netwwork card on node 15 with the corresponding nodes 13-17 
doing I/O through it.
-
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/