On Sat, 2006-08-12 at 14:42 +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > When network uses the same allocator, it depends on it, and thus it is > possible to have (cut by you) a situation when reserve (which depends on > SLAB and it's OOM too) is not filled or even does not exist. No, the reserve does not depend on SLAB, and I totally short-circuit the SLAB allocator for skbs and related on memory pressure. The memalloc reserve is on the page allocator level and is only accessable for PF_MEMALLOC processes or __GFP_MEMALLOC (new in my patches) allocations. (arguably there could be some more deadlocks wrt. PF_MEMALLOC where the code under PF_MEMALLOC is not properly bounded, those would be bugs and should be fixed if present/found) > If transferred to your implementation, then just steal some pages from > SLAB when new network device is added and use them when OOM happens. > It is much simpler and can help in the most of situations. SLAB reclaim is painfull and has been tried by the time you OOM. - 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 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD
- From: Evgeniy Polyakov <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD
- References:
- [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD
- From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD
- From: Evgeniy Polyakov <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD
- From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD
- From: Evgeniy Polyakov <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD
- From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD
- From: Rik van Riel <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD
- From: Evgeniy Polyakov <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD
- From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD
- From: Evgeniy Polyakov <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD
- From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD
- From: Evgeniy Polyakov <[email protected]>
- [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD
- Prev by Date: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD
- Next by Date: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD
- Index(es):