On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 11:17 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Mer, 2005-12-14 at 01:12 -0800, Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
> > Pass __GFP_CRITICAL flag with all allocation requests that are critical.
> > - All allocations needed to process incoming packets are marked as CRITICAL.
> > This includes the allocations
> > - made by the driver to receive incoming packets
> > - to process and send ARP packets
> > - to create new routes for incoming packets
>
> But your user space that would add the routes is not so protected so I'm
> not sure this is actually a solution, more of an extended fudge. In
> which case I'm not clear why it is any better than the current
> GFP_ATOMIC approach.
I am not referring to routes that are added by user-space, but the allocations
needed for cached routes stored in skb->dst in ip_route_input() path.
> > +#define SK_CRIT_ALLOC(sk, flags) ((sk->sk_allocation & __GFP_CRITICAL) | flags)
>
> Lots of hidden conditional logic on critical paths. Also sk should be in
> brackets so that the macro evaluation order is defined as should flags
>
> > +#define CRIT_ALLOC(flags) (__GFP_CRITICAL | flags)
>
> Pointless obfuscation
The only reason i made these macros is that i would expect this to a compile
time configurable option so that there is zero overhead for regular users.
#ifdef CONFIG_CRIT_SOCKET
#define SK_CRIT_ALLOC(sk, flags) ((sk->sk_allocation & __GFP_CRITICAL) | flags)
#define CRIT_ALLOC(flags) (__GFP_CRITICAL | flags)
#else
#define SK_CRIT_ALLOC(sk, flags) flags
#define CRIT_ALLOC(flags) flags
#endif
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]