From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 22:24:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 22:24:31 -0400 Received: from [195.223.140.107] ([195.223.140.107]:26621 "EHLO athlon.random") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 22:24:19 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 04:24:17 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli To: Robert Macaulay Cc: Linus Torvalds , Rik van Riel , Craig Kulesa , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bob Matthews , Marcelo Tosatti Subject: Re: highmem deadlock fix [was Re: VM in 2.4.10(+tweaks) vs. 2.4.9-ac14/15(+stuff)] Message-ID: <20010928042417.J14277@athlon.random> In-Reply-To: <20010928014720.Z14277@athlon.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from robert_macaulay@dell.com on Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 09:12:25PM -0500 X-GnuPG-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.gnupg.asc X-PGP-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.asc Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 09:12:25PM -0500, Robert Macaulay wrote: > Thanks Andrea. I'll see if we can repeat the 0-page alloc again. Ok, it is possible the 0-page alloc failed because NOHIGHIO was disabled, Linus's fix being less finegrined than mine could also lead more easily to 0-page alloc failed. However failing bounce-allocation is not important since we have the reserved pool for those allocations. Not having to use the reserved pool only allows an higher amount of I/O in parallel. This is why I said we could have dropped the NOHIGHIO logic in first place if we wanted to go the non finegrined way. Andrea