Message-ID: <44DDEC1F.6010603@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 10:56:31 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat, Inc
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060614)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
       Daniel Phillips <phillips@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD
References: <20060808193325.1396.58813.sendpatchset@lappy> <20060809054648.GD17446@2ka.mipt.ru> <1155127040.12225.25.camel@twins> <20060809130752.GA17953@2ka.mipt.ru> <1155130353.12225.53.camel@twins> <44DD4E3A.4040000@redhat.com> <20060812084713.GA29523@2ka.mipt.ru> <1155374390.13508.15.camel@lappy> <20060812093706.GA13554@2ka.mipt.ru> <44DDE857.3080703@redhat.com> <20060812144921.GA25058@2ka.mipt.ru>
In-Reply-To: <20060812144921.GA25058@2ka.mipt.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2406
Lines: 53

Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 10:40:23AM -0400, Rik van Riel (riel@redhat.com) wrote:
>> Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
>>> On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 11:19:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra 
>>> (a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl) wrote:
>>>>> As you described above, memory for each packet must be allocated (either
>>>> >from SLAB or from reserve), so network needs special allocator in OOM
>>>>> condition, and that allocator should be separated from SLAB's one which 
>>>>> got OOM, so my purpose is just to use that different allocator (with
>>>>> additional features) for netroking always.
>>> No it is not. There are socket queues and they are limited. Things like
>>> TCP behave even better.
>> Ahhh, but there are two allocators in play here.
>>
>> The first one allocates the memory for receiving packets.
>> This can be one pool, as long as it is isolated from
>> other things in the system it is fine.
>>
>> The second allocator allocates more memory for socket
>> buffers.  The memory critical sockets should get their
>> memory from a mempool, once normal socket memory
>> allocations start failing.
>>
>> This means our allocation differentiation only needs
>> to happen at the socket stage.
>>
>> Or am I overlooking something?
> 
> Yep. Socket allocations end up with alloc_skb() which is essentialy the
> same as what is being done for receiving path skbs.
> If you really want to separate critical from non-critical sockets, it is
> much better not to play with alloc_skb() but directly forbid it in
> appropriate socket allocation function like sock_alloc_send_skb().

The problem is the RECEIVE side.

> What I suggested in previous e-mail is to separate networking
> allocations from other system allocations, so problem in main allocator
> and it's OOM would never affect network path.

That solves half of the problem.  We still need to make sure we
do not allocate memory to non-critical sockets when the system
is almost out of memory.

-- 
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan
-
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/