[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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean