Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/6] Critical Page Pool

Matthew Dobson
2005-12-15T21:51:18Z

Pavel Machek wrote:
>>>And as you noticed, it does not work for your original usage case,
>>>because reserved memory pool would have to be "sum of all network
>>>interface bandwidths * ammount of time expected to survive without
>>>network" which is way too much.
>>
>>Well, I never suggested it didn't work for my original usage case. The
>>discussion we had is that it would be incredibly difficult to 100%
>>iron-clad guarantee that the pool would NEVER run out of pages. But we can
>>size the pool, especially given a decent workload approximation, so as to
>>make failure far less likely.
>
>
> Perhaps you should add file in Documentation/ explaining it is not
> reliable?

That's a good suggestion. I will rework the patch's additions to
Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt to be more clear about exactly what we're
providing.

>>>If you want few emergency pages for some strange hack you are doing
>>>(swapping over network?), just put swap into ramdisk and swapon() it
>>>when you are in emergency, or use memory hotplug and plug few more
>>>gigabytes into your machine. But don't go introducing infrastructure
>>>that _can't_ be used right.
>>
>>Well, that's basically the point of posting these patches as an RFC. I'm
>>not quite so delusional as to think they're going to get picked up right
>>now. I was, however, hoping for feedback to figure out how to design
>>infrastructure that *can* be used right, as well as trying to find other
>>potential users of such a feature.
>
>
> Well, we don't usually take infrastructure that has no in-kernel
> users, and example user would indeed be nice.
> Pavel

Understood. I certainly wouldn't expect otherwise. I'll see if I can get
Sridhar to post his networking changes that take advantage of this.

Thanks!

-Matt