Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] VM deadlock prevention -v5

From: Rik van Riel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:04:10 -0400

Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
>> The basic premises is that network sockets serving the VM need undisturbed
>> functionality in the face of severe memory shortage.
>>
>> This patch-set provides the framework to provide this.
> 
> Hmmm.. Is it not possible to avoid the memory pools by 
> guaranteeing that a certain number of page is easily reclaimable?

No.

You need to guarantee that the memory is not gobbled up by
another subsystem, but remains available for use by *this*
subsystem.  Otherwise you could still deadlock.

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