From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/20] vm deadlock avoidance for NFS, NBD and iSCSI (take 7) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:37:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <20060912143049.278065000@chello.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , David Miller , Rik van Riel , Daniel Phillips Return-path: Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:1483 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965037AbWILQiD (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:38:03 -0400 To: Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: <20060912143049.278065000@chello.nl> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Linus, when I mentioned swap over network to you in Ottawa, you said it was > a valid use case, that people actually do and want this. Can you agree with > the approach taken in these patches? Well, in all honesty, I don't think I really said "valid", but that I said that some crazy people want to do it, and that we should try to allow them their foibles. So I'd be nervous to do any _guarantees_. I think that good VM policies should make it be something that works in general (the dirty mapping limits in particular), but I'd be a bit nervous about anybody taking it _too_ seriously. Crazy people are still crazy, they just might be right under certain reasonably-well-controlled circumstances. Linus