Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/4] deadlock prevention core

["Indan Zupancic" <indan@nul.nu>]

On Sat, August 12, 2006 20:08, Peter Zijlstra said:
> On Sat, 2006-08-12 at 19:54 +0200, Indan Zupancic wrote:
>> True, but currently memalloc_reserve isn't used in a sensible way,
>> or I'm missing something.
>
> Well, I'm somewhat reluctant to stick network related code into mm/, it
> seems well separated now.

What I had in mind was something like:

+static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(memalloc_lock);
+static int memalloc_socks;
+
+atomic_t memalloc_skbs_used;
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(memalloc_skbs_used);
+
+int sk_adjust_memalloc(int nr_socks)
+{
+	unsigned long flags;
+	unsigned int reserve;
+	int err;
+
+	spin_lock_irqsave(&memalloc_lock, flags);
+
+	memalloc_socks += nr_socks;
+	BUG_ON(memalloc_socks < 0);
+
+	reserve = nr_socks * (2 * MAX_PHYS_SEGMENTS + 	/* outbound */
+			      5 * MAX_CONCURRENT_SKBS);	/* inbound */
+
+	err = adjust_memalloc_reserve(reserve);
+	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&memalloc_lock, flags);
+	if (err) {
+		printk(KERN_WARNING
+			"Unable to change RX reserve to: %lu, error: %d\n",
+			reserve, err);
+	}
+	return err;
+}

The original code missed the brackets, so 5 * MAX_CONCURRENT_SKBS wasn't done
per socket. But the comment said it was per socket, so I added in this version.

Greetings,

Indan


--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>