On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 10:22 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > 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.
Here we are assuming that the pre-allocated critical page pool is big enough
to satisfy the requirements of all the critical sockets.
In the current critical page pool implementation, there is also a limitation
that only order-0 allocations(single page) are supported. I think in the
networking send/receive patch, the only place where multi-page allocs are
requested is in the drivers if the MTU > PAGESIZE. But i guess the drivers
are getting updated to avoid > order-0 allocations.
Also during the emergency, we free the memory allocated for non-critical
packets as quickly as possible so that it can be re-used for critical
allocations.
Thanks
Sridhar
-
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/
[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]
