Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932243AbVLNJWd (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2005 04:22:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932250AbVLNJWc (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2005 04:22:32 -0500 Received: from ns1.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:4799 "EHLO mx1.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932243AbVLNJWc (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2005 04:22:32 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:22:28 +0100 From: Andi Kleen To: Sridhar Samudrala Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] TCP/IP Critical socket communication mechanism Message-ID: <20051214092228.GC18862@brahms.suse.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 630 Lines: 15 > 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. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/