On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > However I really have an aversion to the near enough is good enough way of > thinking. Especially when it comes to fundamental deadlocks in the VM. I > don't know whether Peter's patch is completely clean yet, but fixing the > fundamentally broken code has my full support.
Uhh. There are already numerous other issues why the VM is failing that is independent of Peter's approach. > I hate it that there are theoretical bugs still left even if they would > be hit less frequently than hardware failure. And that people are really > happy to put even more of these things in :( Theoretical bugs? Depends on one's creativity to come up with them I guess. So far we do not even get around to address the known issues and this multi subsystem patch has the potential of creating more. > Anyway, as you know I like your patch and if that gives Peter a little > more breathing space then it's a good thing. But I really hope he doesn't > give up on it, and it should be merged one day. Using the VM to throttle networking is a pretty bad thing because it assumes single critical user of memory. There are other consumers of memory and if you have a load that depends on other things than networking then you should not kill the other things that want memory. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
