[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: refill_inactive()
    In article <> you wrote:

    > On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
    >> Hmmm, doesn't GFP_BUFFER simply imply that we cannot
    >> allocate new buffer heads to do IO with??

    > The name is a misnomer, partly due to historical reasons (the buffer cache
    > used to be fragile, and if you free'd buffer cache pages while you were
    > trying to allocate new ones you could cause BadThings(tm) to happen), but
    > partly just because the only _user_ of it is the buffer cache.

    And the network-stack in net/core/sock.c:sock_alloc_send_skb which sounds
    like a bug in this case, and might even be the cause of too many GFP_BUFFER
    allocations in loads suchs as Ingo's.

    Arjan van de Ven

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:39    [W:0.019 / U:76.372 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site