Hi,
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.
> 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.
> And the 1-second polling loop has to be killed since it make no sense.
Actually, that probably isn't too bad, as long as we make sure we wake
up kswapd on GFP_ATOMIC allocations when the free page count gets below
freepages.min, even if the allocation succeeded (and Rik's patch does
do that).
--Stephen
-
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