Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 27 Sep 2001 08:38:51 +0200 (CEST) | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | [patch] netconsole-2.4.10-B1 |
| |
On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> Don't you think it would be useful to have some reserved memory for > the netconsole use ? > It would be nice to have a guarantee that messages are sent over > network even if the system is under real OOM.
yep, that is very useful indeed.
i've implemented a private emergency pool of 32 packets that we try to keep filled as much as possible, and which one we use only if GFP_ATOMIC fails. The new patch can downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/netconsole-patches/netconsole-2.4.10-B1
the patch also includes Andrew Morton's suggestion to add the HAVE_POLL_CONTROLLER define for easier network-driver integration. The eepro100.c changes now use this define.
the new utilities-tarball is at:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/netconsole-patches/netconsole-client-20010927.tar.gz
this includes Andreas Dilger's netconsole-server script. (i've done a minor modification to the script, it insmods the netconsole module with the parameters.)
there is one more thing we could do: we could also allocate the skb on stack in extreme cases. This adds noticeable latency though, since the skb xmit has to be polled for completion as well [this can be done with the current ->poll_controller() method], but this way the netconsole could be self-sufficient and would be completely independent of the VM.
reports, suggestions, comments welcome,
Ingo
- 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/
|  |