Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 13:41:20 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
        Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, npiggin@kernel.dk, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com,
        Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>, Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Unmapped page cache control (v5)
In-Reply-To: <20110402011040.GG6957@dastard>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1104031339120.15317@router.home>
References: <20110331144145.0ECA.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1103311451530.28364@router.home> <20110401221921.A890.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110402011040.GG6957@dastard>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 748
Lines: 15

On Sat, 2 Apr 2011, Dave Chinner wrote:

> Fundamentally, if you just switch off memory reclaim to avoid the
> latencies involved with direct memory reclaim, then all you'll get
> instead is ENOMEM because there's no memory available and none will be
> reclaimed. That's even more fatal for the system than doing reclaim.

Not for my use cases here. No one will die if reclaim happens but its bad
for the bottom line. Reducing the chance of memory reclaim occurring in a
critical section is sufficient.
--
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/