On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > The thing I don't much like about your patches is the addition of more > of these global reserve type things in the allocators. They kind of > suck (not your code, just the concept of them in general -- ie. including > the PF_MEMALLOC reserve). I'd like to eventually reach a model where > reclaimable memory from a given subsystem is always backed by enough > resources to be able to reclaim it. What stopped you from going that > route with the network subsystem? (too much churn, or something > fundamental?)
That sounds very right aside from the global reserve. A given subsystem may exist in multiple instances and serve sub partitions of the system. F.e. there may be a network card on node 5 and a job running on nodes 3-7 and another netwwork card on node 15 with the corresponding nodes 13-17 doing I/O through 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/
