On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > Just to clarify... I can see how recursive reclaim can prevent memory getting > eaten up by reclaim (which thus causes allocations from interrupt handlers to > fail)... > > But this patchset I don't see will do anything to prevent reclaim deadlocks, > right? (because if there is reclaimable memory at hand, then kswapd should > eventually reclaim it).
What deadlocks are you thinking about? Reclaim can be run concurrently right now. - 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/
