From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 13:52:05 +0400 From: Evgeniy Polyakov Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD Message-ID: <20060813095205.GA5458@2ka.mipt.ru> References: <20060812084713.GA29523@2ka.mipt.ru> <1155374390.13508.15.camel@lappy> <20060812093706.GA13554@2ka.mipt.ru> <20060812.174607.44371641.davem@davemloft.net> <20060813090620.GB14960@2ka.mipt.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060813090620.GB14960@2ka.mipt.ru> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: David Miller Cc: a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, riel@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, phillips@google.com List-ID: On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 01:06:21PM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov (johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru) wrote: > On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 05:46:07PM -0700, David Miller (davem@davemloft.net) wrote: > > From: Evgeniy Polyakov > > Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:37:06 +0400 > > > > > Does it? I though it is possible to only have 64k of working sockets per > > > device in TCP. > > > > Where does this limit come from? > > > > You think there is something magic about 64K local ports, > > but if remote IP addresses in the TCP socket IDs are all > > different, number of possible TCP sockets is only limited > > by "number of client IPs * 64K" and ram :-) > > I talked about working sockets, but not about how many of them system > can have at all :) working -> bound. -- Evgeniy Polyakov -- 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