On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:10:40 -0700 Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote: > >> Where as resource pool is exactly opposite of mempool, where each > >> time it looks for an object in the pool and if it exist then we > >> return that object else we try to get the memory for OS while > >> scheduling the work to grow the pool objects. In fact, the work > >> is schedule to grow the pool when the low threshold point is hit. > > > > I realise all that. But I'd have thought that the mempool approach is > > actually better: use the page allocator and only deplete your reserve pool > > when the page allocator fails. > > the problem with that is that if anything downstream from the iommu > layer ALSO needs memory, we've now eaten up the last free page and > things go splat. If that happens, we still have the mempool reserve to fall back to. I don't see why it is better to consume the reserves before going to the page allocator instead of holding them, err, in reserve. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
