From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <44E06AC7.6090301@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:21:27 -0400 From: Rik van Riel MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] VM deadlock prevention -v4 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> <20060814052015.GB1335@2ka.mipt.ru> In-Reply-To: <20060814052015.GB1335@2ka.mipt.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Evgeniy Polyakov Cc: Daniel Phillips , Peter Zijlstra , Indan Zupancic , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, David Miller List-ID: Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 05:42:47PM -0700, Daniel Phillips (phillips@google.com) wrote: >> 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. That should not be any problem, since skb's (including cowed ones) are short lived anyway. Allocating a little bit more memory is fine when we have a guarantee that the memory will be freed again shortly. -- What is important? What you want to be true, or what is true? -- 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