From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] network memory allocator. From: Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: <20060815150507.GA9734@2ka.mipt.ru> References: <20060814110359.GA27704@2ka.mipt.ru> <1155558313.5696.167.camel@twins> <20060814123530.GA5019@2ka.mipt.ru> <1155639302.5696.210.camel@twins> <20060815112617.GB21736@2ka.mipt.ru> <1155643405.5696.236.camel@twins> <20060815123438.GA29896@2ka.mipt.ru> <1155649768.5696.262.camel@twins> <20060815141501.GA10998@2ka.mipt.ru> <1155653339.5696.282.camel@twins> <20060815150507.GA9734@2ka.mipt.ru> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 19:42:16 +0200 Message-Id: <1155663737.13508.127.camel@lappy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Evgeniy Polyakov Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 19:05 +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > > Not sure on the details; but you say: when we reach the threshold all > > following packets will be dropped. So if you provide enough memory to > > exceed the limit, you have some extra. If you then use that extra bit to > > allow ACKs to pass through, then you're set. > > > > Sounds good, but you'd have to carve a path for the ACKs, right? Or is > > that already there? > > Acks with or without attached data are processed before data queueing. > See tcp_rcv_established(). Right, however I just realised that most storage protocols (level 7) have their own ACK msgs and do not rely on TCP (level 4) ACKs like this. So I would like to come back on this, I do need a full data channel open. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org