Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:17:13 +0200 (CEST) | From | (Arjan van de Ven) | Subject | Re: refill_inactive() |
| |
In article <Pine.LNX.4.10.10009250914100.1666-100000@penguin.transmeta.com> 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.
Greetings, Arjan van de Ven
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |