On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 05:17:29PM +1000, Neil Brown ([email protected]) wrote: > Would it be too much waste to reserve one page for every idle socket? > > Does this have some fatal flaw? Yep, in some cases number of sockets is unlimited, but number of total memory they can eat is limited already as David mentioned by tcp_?mem[]. > NeilBrown -- Evgeniy Polyakov - 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/
- References:
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- From: Daniel Phillips <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- From: David Miller <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- From: Daniel Phillips <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- From: Neil Brown <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- Prev by Date: Re: softirq considered harmful
- Next by Date: sata_sil driver dev 0 failed to IDENTIFY (INIT_DEV_PARAMS failed)
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- Index(es):
 |