On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 05:14:06AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > However I really have an aversion to the near enough is good enough way of > > thinking. Especially when it comes to fundamental deadlocks in the VM. I > > don't know whether Peter's patch is completely clean yet, but fixing the > > fundamentally broken code has my full support. > > Uhh. There are already numerous other issues why the VM is failing that is > independent of Peter's approach.
I don't know what your point is? We either ignore it, or try to fix things one at a time. > > I hate it that there are theoretical bugs still left even if they would > > be hit less frequently than hardware failure. And that people are really > > happy to put even more of these things in :( > > Theoretical bugs? Depends on one's creativity to come up with them I > guess. So far we do not even get around to address the known issues and > this multi subsystem patch has the potential of creating more. I can't direct people as to what bugs to work on. > > Anyway, as you know I like your patch and if that gives Peter a little > > more breathing space then it's a good thing. But I really hope he doesn't > > give up on it, and it should be merged one day. > > Using the VM to throttle networking is a pretty bad thing because it > assumes single critical user of memory. There are other consumers of > memory and if you have a load that depends on other things than networking > then you should not kill the other things that want memory. Implementation issues aside, the problem is there and I would like to see it fixed regardless if some/most/or all users in practice don't hit it. - 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/
