On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:

quoted text
> 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.


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