Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030395AbWILX6K (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:58:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030384AbWILX6K (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:58:10 -0400 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.228]:37544 "EHLO wx-out-0506.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030395AbWILX6H (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:58:07 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=iZ4MM0QGm+BTtYrPCxVZDIvT0YtOEr8GIpe5NzSrSEZW8iPH9CSIZkHEj6VfYyWYQTwI9r1CvDajTnTrm3lLLcauKcqGZmU3qoI0donQq9DM0ygjnFLYOEXBRsKtT7aMchySKrdLIi+CsiJITo4ACsCRawhdp41wfdDnW2CBhbY= Message-ID: <5c49b0ed0609121658y6e96c4a7n46f1d68645f621b6@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:58:06 -0700 From: "Nate Diller" To: "Linus Torvalds" Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/20] vm deadlock avoidance for NFS, NBD and iSCSI (take 7) Cc: "Peter Zijlstra" , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, "Andrew Morton" , "David Miller" , "Rik van Riel" , "Daniel Phillips" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060912143049.278065000@chello.nl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1602 Lines: 37 On 9/12/06, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > Linus, when I mentioned swap over network to you in Ottawa, you said it was > > a valid use case, that people actually do and want this. Can you agree with > > the approach taken in these patches? > > Well, in all honesty, I don't think I really said "valid", but that I said > that some crazy people want to do it, and that we should try to allow them > their foibles. > > So I'd be nervous to do any _guarantees_. I think that good VM policies > should make it be something that works in general (the dirty mapping > limits in particular), but I'd be a bit nervous about anybody taking it > _too_ seriously. Crazy people are still crazy, they just might be right > under certain reasonably-well-controlled circumstances. (oops, forgot to cc: the list) Personally, I'm a little unhappy with the added complexity here, I'm not convinced that this extra feature is worth it. In particular, adding to the address_space_operations, the block_device_operations, and creating a new swap index/offset interface just for this seems questionable. I feel like interface bloat should be reserved for features that have widespread use and benefit. Not that I'm opposed to this feature, just that I think this patch is too invasive interface-wise. NATE - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/