Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:57:43 +0200 | From | Avi Kivity <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [Request for inclusion] Filesystem in Userspace |
| |
Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>I have observed it too (not yet fixed, but working on it). But >realize that my proposal would excempt userspace filesystem pages from >being blocked on by kswapd. That's a fundamental difference. > >Since you don't believe me, I'll have to make an implementation, so >you can experiment with it. And if you'll still be able to cause a >deadlock, I'll subject myself to extreme repentance, and promise never >to touch an operating system ever again :) > > > >>with ramfs, once it accounts for memory, there would be no deadlock and >>no oom. >> >> > >And once fuse acounts for memory there will be no deadlock and no oom. >See the symmetry? > > > If you plan on partitioning system memory into none-fuse and fuse memory, yes, that could work. but it's horribly inflexible - right now memory is balanced dynamically according to actual use. you may also have a hard time with mmap.
my proposal (with the per-process allocation thredsholds) only reserves a small amount of memory to the fuse(s), with the rest allocated dynamically using the normal kernel policies, with no special restrictions on fuse.
-- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
- 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/
| |