On 8/10/07, Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The idea of adding code to deal with "I have no memory" situations > in a kernel that based on have as much memory as possible in use at all > times is plainly the wrong approach.
No. It is you who have read the patches wrongly, because what you imply here is exactly backwards. > If you need memory then memory needs > to be reclaimed. That is the basic way that things work Wrong. A naive reading of your comment would suggest you do not understand how PF_MEMALLOC works, and that it has worked that way from day one (well, since long before I arrived) and that we just do more of the same, except better. > and following that > through brings about a much less invasive solution without all the issues > that the proposed solution creates. What issues? Test case please, a real one that you have run yourself. Please, no more theoretical issues that cannot be demonstrated in practice because they do not exist. Regards, Daniel - 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/
