[PATCH] 2.2.14 VM fix #3

[Stephen C. Tweedie]

Hi,

On Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:34:14 +0100 (CET), Andrea Arcangeli
<andrea en suse.de> said:

> Sorry but I will never agree with your patch. The GFP_KERNEL change is not
> something for 2.2.x. We have major deadlocks in getblk for example and you
> may trigger tham more easily forbidding GFP_MID allocations to
> succeed. 

Agreed, definitely.

> Also killing the low_on_memory will harm performance. You doesn't seems to
> see what such bit (that should be a per-process thing) is good for.

Also agreed --- removing the per-process flag will just penalise _all_
processes when we enter thrashing.

> And the 1-second polling loop has to be killed since it make no sense.

Actually, that probably isn't too bad, as long as we make sure we wake
up kswapd on GFP_ATOMIC allocations when the free page count gets below
freepages.min, even if the allocation succeeded (and Rik's patch does
do that).

--Stephen

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo en vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/