Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 29 Jan 2006 00:10:58 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Let the flames begin... [was Re: [patch 3/9] mempool - Make mempools NUMA aware] |
| |
On So 28-01-06 23:59:07, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > >If sending routines can work with constant ammount of memory, why use > > >kmalloc at all? Anyway I thought we were talking receiving side > > >earlier in the thread. > > > > > >Ouch and wait a moment. You claim that GFP_KERNEL allocations can't > > >block/sleep? Of course they can, that's why they are GFP_KERNEL and > > >not GFP_ATOMIC. > > > > > I didn't meant GFP_KERNEL allocations cannot block/sleep? When in > > emergency, we > > want even the GFP_KERNEL allocations that are made by critical sockets > > not to block/sleep. > > So my original critical sockets patches changes the gfp flag passed to > > these allocation requests > > to GFP_KERNEL|GFP_CRITICAL.
(I'd say Al Viro mode, but Al could take that personally)
IOW: You keep pushing complex and known-broken solution for problem that does not exist.
(Now you should be angry enough, and please explain why I'm wrong in easy to understand terms, so that even I will understand that we need critical sockets for kernels in emergency). Pavel -- Thanks, Sharp! - 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/
| |