| To: | marcelo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Marcelo Tosatti) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: BUG in tcp.c ? |
| From: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Date: | Fri, 13 Oct 2000 20:08:23 +0400 (MSK DST) |
| Cc: | davem@xxxxxxxxxx, eis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, riel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.21.0010131337430.5155-100000@freak.distro.conectiva> from "Marcelo Tosatti" at Oct 13, 0 01:54:38 pm |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Hello! > If I understood correctly, the code relies on that GFP_BUFFER allocations > will not sleep, right ? No, really. This branch is used exactly from one place and we may sleep there. I am afraid not of this, but that it is too agressive. The idea was to get high order chunk of memory (32K as rule), if memory is not under pressure. And if it is a problem, allocate small page sized buffer using sk->allocation. This code is very old. I suspect it is not valid now. Maybe it should use GFP_NULL = 0. 8) Alexey |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: BUG in tcp.c ?, Marcelo Tosatti |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Information about scm_cookie{}, Gigi Sullivan |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: BUG in tcp.c ?, Marcelo Tosatti |
| Next by Thread: | Filtering outgoing tunneled IPv6 packets with ipchains - possible?, Peter Bieringer |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |