Re: [with-PATCH-really] highmem deadlock removal, balancing & cleanup

Rik van Riel
2001-05-26T00:26:33Z

On Fri, 25 May 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Oh, also: the logic behind the change of the kmem_cache_reap() - instead
> of making it conditional on the _reverse_ test of what it has historically
> been, why isn't it just completely unconditional? You've basically
> dismissed the only valid reason for it to have been (illogically)
> conditional, so I'd have expected that just _removing_ the test is better
> than reversing it like your patch does..
>
> No?

The function do_try_to_free_pages() also gets called when we're
only short on inactive pages, but we still have TONS of free
memory. In that case, I don't think we'd actually want to steal
free memory from anyone.

Moving it into the same if() conditional the other memory
freeers are in would make sense, though ...

regards,

Rik
--
Linux MM bugzilla: http://linux-mm.org/bugzilla.shtml

Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...

http://www.surriel.com/
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/