Hi,

On Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:34:14 +0100 (CET), Andrea Arcangeli
[off-list ref] 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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/