On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 09:55:45AM -0800, Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
> 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.
Not a good assumption. A system can have between 1-1000 iSCSI
connections open and we certainly don't want to preallocate enough
room for 1000 connections to make progress when we might only have one
in use.
I think we need a global receive pool and per-socket send pools.
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
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]
