Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762135AbXHJXZp (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Aug 2007 19:25:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753886AbXHJXZg (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Aug 2007 19:25:36 -0400 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.176]:6333 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753577AbXHJXZf (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Aug 2007 19:25:35 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=E5dR8t88pUpW4drRoNACoM1RgDSe96oeM8znPU7Dc/XzMdIyxK2X/SsYVcPakybq87ME1PE5n10bdVMQfUzd+Mjkjxh1D+QZZM9M3P2RVyR7874z0mrXkRKy3db/wnjfpv131xHbnrnVeNuYUvanStl3RVKV5DbgkXHXFKsbH+0= Message-ID: <4a5909270708101625q407a240ck6109ef536fdbed4a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 19:25:34 -0400 From: "Daniel Phillips" To: "Christoph Lameter" Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] mm: system wide ALLOC_NO_WATERMARK Cc: "Daniel Phillips" , "Peter Zijlstra" , "Matt Mackall" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, "David Miller" , "Andrew Morton" , "Daniel Phillips" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070806102922.907530000@chello.nl> <4a5909270708091141tb259eddyb2bba1270751ef1@mail.gmail.com> <4a5909270708091717n2f93fcb5i284d82edfd235145@mail.gmail.com> <4a5909270708092034yaa0a583w70084ef93266df48@mail.gmail.com> <4a5909270708100115v4ad10c4es697d216edf29b07d@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1244 Lines: 32 On 8/10/07, Christoph Lameter wrote: > The idea of adding code to deal with "I have no memory" situations > in a kernel that based on have as much memory as possible in use at all > times is plainly the wrong approach. No. It is you who have read the patches wrongly, because what you imply here is exactly backwards. > If you need memory then memory needs > to be reclaimed. That is the basic way that things work Wrong. A naive reading of your comment would suggest you do not understand how PF_MEMALLOC works, and that it has worked that way from day one (well, since long before I arrived) and that we just do more of the same, except better. > and following that > through brings about a much less invasive solution without all the issues > that the proposed solution creates. What issues? Test case please, a real one that you have run yourself. Please, no more theoretical issues that cannot be demonstrated in practice because they do not exist. Regards, Daniel - 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/