Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core

From: Andre Tomt
Date: Sat Aug 19 2006 - 21:31:05 EST

Rik van Riel wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:

- We expect that the lots-of-dirty-anon-memory-over-swap-over-network
scenario might still cause deadlocks. I assert that this can be solved by putting swap on local disks. Peter
asserts that this isn't acceptable due to disk unreliability. I point
out that local disk reliability can be increased via MD, all goes quiet.

A good exposition which helps us to understand whether and why a
significant proportion of the target user base still wishes to do
swap-over-network would be useful.

You cannot put disks in many models of blade servers.

At all.

Or many thin clients in general. They are used in quite a few schools over here, running Linux.
Some of them do in fact have space for disks, but disks adds costs (heat, power, replacing failed drives)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at