Re: Network receive stall avoidance (was [PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core)

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]>

• 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):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]