From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:58:36 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Recursive reclaim (on __PF_MEMALLOC) Message-ID: <20070918115836.1394a051@twins> In-Reply-To: <200709172211.26493.phillips@phunq.net> References: <20070814142103.204771292@sgi.com> <200709171728.26180.phillips@phunq.net> <170fa0d20709172027g3b83d606k6a8e641f71848c3@mail.gmail.com> <200709172211.26493.phillips@phunq.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Daniel Phillips Cc: Mike Snitzer , Christoph Lameter , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, dkegel@google.com, David Miller , Nick Piggin , Wouter Verhelst , Evgeniy Polyakov List-ID: On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:11:25 -0700 Daniel Phillips wrote: > > I've been using Avi Kivity's patch from some time ago: > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/7/26/68 > > Yes. Ddsnap includes a bit of code almost identical to that, which we wrote independently. Seems wild and crazy at first blush, doesn't it? But this approach has proved robust in practice, and is to my mind, obviously correct. I'm so not liking this :-( Can't we just run the user-space part as mlockall and extend netlink to work with PF_MEMALLOC where needed? I did something like that for iSCSI. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org