From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:39:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Recursive reclaim (on __PF_MEMALLOC) In-Reply-To: <20070821002830.GB8414@wotan.suse.de> Message-ID: References: <20070814142103.204771292@sgi.com> <20070815122253.GA15268@wotan.suse.de> <1187183526.6114.45.camel@twins> <20070816032921.GA32197@wotan.suse.de> <1187581894.6114.169.camel@twins> <20070821002830.GB8414@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Peter Zijlstra , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, dkegel@google.com, David Miller , Daniel Phillips List-ID: On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > The thing I don't much like about your patches is the addition of more > of these global reserve type things in the allocators. They kind of > suck (not your code, just the concept of them in general -- ie. including > the PF_MEMALLOC reserve). I'd like to eventually reach a model where > reclaimable memory from a given subsystem is always backed by enough > resources to be able to reclaim it. What stopped you from going that > route with the network subsystem? (too much churn, or something > fundamental?) That sounds very right aside from the global reserve. A given subsystem may exist in multiple instances and serve sub partitions of the system. F.e. there may be a network card on node 5 and a job running on nodes 3-7 and another netwwork card on node 15 with the corresponding nodes 13-17 doing I/O through it. -- 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