On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:14:09 -0700 Daniel Phillips <[email protected]> wrote: > So rather than just the word deadlock, let us add "or atomic 0 order > alloc failure during TCP receive" to the challenge. Fair? If it's significantly performance-affecting in any way which is at all likely to affect anyone, sure. You can get those warnings now with regular networking using e1000, due to a combination of excessive default rx ringsize and incorrect VM tuning. - 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: Thomas Graf <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- From: Rik van Riel <[email protected]>
- 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: 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: 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: 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: Daniel Phillips <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: Network receive stall avoidance (was [PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core)
- From: Daniel Phillips <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- Prev by Date: [PATCH] Return real errno from execve in ____call_usermodehelper
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 4/7] proc: Make the generation of the self symlink table driven.
- Previous by thread: Re: Network receive stall avoidance (was [PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core)
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- Index(es):
 |