From: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.1-rc1-tiny2
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 15:30:14 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040107213014.GF18208@waste.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040107211045.GJ16720@suse.de>
> > For the sake of our other readers, I'll point out that mempool doesn't
> > intrinisically reduce deadlock odds to zero unless we have a hard
> > limit on requests in flight that's strictly less than pool size.
>
> That's not true, depends entirely on usage. It's not a magic wand. And
> you don't need a hard limit, you only need progress guarentee.
Yes, definitely depends on usage.
> Typically just a single pre-allocated object can make you 100%
> deadlock free, if stacking is not involved. So for most cases, I
> think it would be much better if you just hard wired min_nr to 1,
> that would move you from 90% to 99% safe :-)
Sure, I've considered that. I'll put an option for that on my todo list.
--
Matt Mackall : http://www.selenic.com : Linux development and consulting
prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-01-07 21:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-01-06 5:48 2.6.1-rc1-tiny2 Matt Mackall
2004-01-06 6:33 ` 2.6.1-rc1-tiny2 Nick Piggin
2004-01-06 6:46 ` 2.6.1-rc1-tiny2 Matt Mackall
2004-01-06 7:08 ` 2.6.1-rc1-tiny2 Nick Piggin
2004-01-10 0:46 ` 2.6.1-rc1-tiny2 Adrian Bunk
2004-01-10 0:50 ` [0/4] better i386 CPU selection Adrian Bunk
2004-01-10 0:52 ` [1/4] " Adrian Bunk
2004-01-10 11:04 ` Wichert Akkerman
2004-01-11 3:13 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-01-14 20:49 ` [-mm patch] " Adrian Bunk
2004-01-16 19:15 ` [1/4] " cliff white
2004-01-16 19:32 ` Richard B. Johnson
2004-01-17 0:01 ` Andrew Morton
2004-01-17 2:57 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-01-19 15:14 ` John Stoffel
2004-01-19 23:42 ` Nick Piggin
2004-01-17 2:15 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-01-17 9:13 ` Robert Schwebel
2004-01-20 22:10 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-01-20 22:31 ` Richard B. Johnson
2004-01-20 22:47 ` George Anzinger
2004-01-17 10:01 ` aeriksson
2004-01-10 0:57 ` [2/4] move "struct movsl_mask movsl_mask" to usercopy.c Adrian Bunk
2004-01-10 0:57 ` [3/4] proof of concept: make arch/i386/kernel/cpu/Makefile CPU specific Adrian Bunk
2004-01-10 0:58 ` [4/4] proof of concept: make arch/i386/kernel/cpu/mtrr/Makefile " Adrian Bunk
2004-01-10 22:14 ` 2.6.1-rc1-tiny2 Matt Mackall
2004-01-12 2:20 ` 2.6.1-rc1-tiny2 Nick Piggin
2004-01-07 14:06 ` 2.6.1-rc1-tiny2 Jens Axboe
2004-01-07 18:50 ` 2.6.1-rc1-tiny2 Matt Mackall
2004-01-07 19:27 ` 2.6.1-rc1-tiny2 Mitchell Blank Jr
2004-01-07 20:10 ` 2.6.1-rc1-tiny2 Matt Mackall
2004-01-07 21:41 ` 2.6.1-rc1-tiny2 Trond Myklebust
2004-01-07 21:10 ` 2.6.1-rc1-tiny2 Jens Axboe
2004-01-07 21:30 ` Matt Mackall [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040107213014.GF18208@waste.org \
--to=mpm@selenic.com \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox