Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core

From: Rik van Riel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:24:39 -0400

Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>> Daniel Phillips <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>> What happened to the case where we just fill memory full of dirty file
>>> pages backed by a remote disk?
>>
>> Processes which are dirtying those pages throttle at
>> /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio% of memory dirty.  So it is not possible to 
>> "fill"
>> memory with dirty pages.  If the amount of physical memory which is dirty
>> exceeds 40%: bug.

> So we make 400 MB of a 1 GB system unavailable for write caching just to
> get around the network receive starvation issue?
> 
> What happens if some in kernel user grabs 68% of kernel memory to do some
> very important thing, does this starvation avoidance scheme still work?

Also think about eg. scientific calculations, or anonymous memory.

People want to be able to use a larger percentage of their memory
for dirty data, without swapping...

-- 
What is important?  What you want to be true, or what is true?