Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030388AbVLOEcn (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:32:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030386AbVLOEcn (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:32:43 -0500 Received: from dsl027-180-168.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.27.180.168]:8609 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030349AbVLOEcm (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:32:42 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:30:23 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <20051214.203023.129054759.davem@davemloft.net> To: mpm@selenic.com Cc: sri@us.ibm.com, ak@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] TCP/IP Critical socket communication mechanism From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20051215033937.GC11856@waste.org> References: <20051214092228.GC18862@brahms.suse.de> <1134582945.8698.17.camel@w-sridhar2.beaverton.ibm.com> <20051215033937.GC11856@waste.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 4.2.53 on Emacs 21.4 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1369 Lines: 28 From: Matt Mackall Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:39:37 -0800 > I think we need a global receive pool and per-socket send pools. Mind telling everyone how you plan to make use of the global receive pool when the allocation happens in the device driver and we have no idea which socket the packet is destined for? What should be done for non-local packets being routed? The device drivers allocate packets for the entire system, long before we know who the eventually received packets are for. It is fully anonymous memory, and it's easy to design cases where the whole pool can be eaten up by non-local forwarded packets. I truly dislike these patches being discussed because they are a complete hack, and admittedly don't even solve the problem fully. I don't have any concrete better ideas but that doesn't mean this stuff should go into the tree. I think GFP_ATOMIC memory pools are more powerful than they are given credit for. There is nothing preventing the implementation of dynamic GFP_ATOMIC watermarks, and having "critical" socket behavior "kick in" in response to hitting those water marks. - 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/