[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: how not to write a search algorithm

To: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>
Subject: Re: how not to write a search algorithm
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 13:00:14 -0700
CC: "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Fake-Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mm-archive@humbolt.geo.uu.nl
References: <3D4CE74A.A827C9BC@zip.com.au> <Pine.LNX.4.44L.0208041015350.23404-100000@imladris.surriel.com>
Sender: Rik van Riel <riel@nl.linux.org>

Rik van Riel wrote:
> 
> ...
> > Alan's kernel has a nice-looking implementation.  I'll lift that out
> > next week unless someone beats me to it.
> 
> Good to hear that you found this one ;)

The same test panics Alan's kernel with pte_chain oom, so I can't
check whether/how well it fixes it :(

2.5 is no better off wrt pte_chain oom, and I expect it'll oops
with this test when per-zone-LRUs are implemented.

Is there a proposed way of recovering from pte_chain oom?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: how not to write a search algorithm
  - From: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>
- Re: how not to write a search algorithm
  - From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>

References:
- how not to write a search algorithm
  - From: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>
- Re: how not to write a search algorithm
  - From: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>

Prev by Date: Re: how not to write a search algorithm
Next by Date: Re: how not to write a search algorithm
Prev by thread: Re: how not to write a search algorithm
Next by thread: Re: how not to write a search algorithm
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread