lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
    Rik van Riel wrote:
    > Thomas Graf wrote:
    >> skb->dev is not guaranteed to still point to the "allocating" device
    >> once the skb is freed again so reserve/unreserve isn't symmetric.
    >> You'd need skb->alloc_dev or something.
    >
    > There's another consequence of this property of the network
    > stack.
    >
    > Every network interface must be able to fall back to these
    > MEMALLOC allocations, because the memory critical socket
    > could be on another network interface. Hence, we cannot
    > know which network interfaces should (not) be marked MEMALLOC.

    Good point. We do however know which interfaces should be marked
    capable of carrying block IO traffic: the ones that have been fixed,
    audited and tested. We might then allow the network block device to
    specify which interface(s) will actually carry the traffic.

    The advantage of being specific about which devices are carrying at
    least one block io socket is, we can skip the reserve accounting for
    the other interfaces. But is the extra layer of configuration gack a
    better idea than just doing the accounting for every device, provided
    the system is in reclaim?

    By the way, another way to avoid impact on the normal case is an
    experimental option such as CONFIG_PREVENT_NETWORK_BLOCKIO_DEADLOCK.

    Regards,

    Daniel
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-08-14 00:09    [W:4.204 / U:0.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site