From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Phillips Subject: Re: Network vm deadlock... solution? Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 10:55:09 +1000 References: <200508020654.32693.phillips@istop.com> <20050802214340.GA6309@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <16580000.1123022344@[10.10.2.4]> In-Reply-To: <16580000.1123022344@[10.10.2.4]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200508031055.09787.phillips@istop.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: Francois Romieu , Sridhar Samudrala , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wednesday 03 August 2005 08:39, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > --Francois Romieu wrote (on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 > > Btw I do not get what the mempool/GFP_CRITICAL idea buys: it seems > > redundant with the threshold ("if (memory_pressure)") used in the Rx path > > to decide that memory is low. > > It's send-side, not receive. Receive side. Send side also needs reserve+throttling but it is easier because we flag packets at allocation time for special handling. Regards, Daniel -- 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