From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:20:16 +0400 From: Evgeniy Polyakov Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] VM deadlock prevention -v4 Message-ID: <20060814052015.GB1335@2ka.mipt.ru> References: <20060812141415.30842.78695.sendpatchset@lappy> <33471.81.207.0.53.1155401489.squirrel@81.207.0.53> <1155404014.13508.72.camel@lappy> <47227.81.207.0.53.1155406611.squirrel@81.207.0.53> <1155408846.13508.115.camel@lappy> <44DFC707.7000404@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <44DFC707.7000404@google.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Daniel Phillips Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Indan Zupancic , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Rik van Riel , David Miller List-ID: On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 05:42:47PM -0700, Daniel Phillips (phillips@google.com) wrote: > High order allocations are just way too undependable without active > defragmentation, which isn't even on the horizon at the moment. We > just need to treat any network hardware that can't scatter/gather into > single pages as too broken to use for network block io. A bit of network tree allocator free advertisement - per-CPU self defragmentation works reliably in that allocator, one could even find a graphs of memory usage for NTA and SLAB-like allocator. > As for sk_buff cow break, we need to look at which network paths do it > (netfilter obviously, probably others) and decide whether we just want > to declare that the feature breaks network block IO, or fix the feature > so it plays well with reserve accounting. I would suggest to consider skb cow (cloning) as a must. > Regards, > > Daniel -- 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