Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] TCP/IP Critical socket communication mechanism

> I would appreciate any feedback or comments on this approach.

Maybe I'm missing something but wouldn't you need an own critical
pool (or at least reservation) for each socket to be safe against deadlocks?

Otherwise if a critical sockets needs e.g. 2 pages to finish something
and 2 critical sockets are active they can each steal the last pages
from each other and deadlock.

-Andi
-
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/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] TCP/IP Critical socket communication mechanism
  - From: Sridhar Samudrala <[email protected]>

References:
- [RFC][PATCH 0/3] TCP/IP Critical socket communication mechanism
  - From: Sridhar Samudrala <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario
Next by Date: Re: tsc clock issues with dual core and question about irq balancing
Previous by thread: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] TCP/IP Critical socket communication mechanism
Next by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] TCP/IP Critical socket communication mechanism
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Kernel Newbies] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Stuff] [Gimp] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Video 4 Linux] [Linux for the blind] [Linux Resources]