| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Ethernet bridge performance |
| From: | Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 07 Aug 2003 12:50:53 -0700 |
| Cc: | felix@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030807123547.1dcf2353.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | Candela Technologies |
| References: | <3F3217E7.2080903@xxxxxxxxx> <3F3284EA.5050406@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030807123547.1dcf2353.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030718 |
David S. Miller wrote: On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 09:57:14 -0700 Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Btw, I've considered saving, say, 10k skbs on a list in my module, allocated by GFP_KERNEL at module load time, and using them when GFP_ATOMIC skb_alloc fails in the IRQ handling portion of the code.... Anyone think that's a good idea? :)Not really. GFP_ATOMIC should not fail regularly under normal (even heavy load) operation. If it does, it means the amount of reserved pages the kernel keeps around is not set correctly for your system. In 2.6.x, play with /proc/sys/vm/min_free_kbytes Anything to set for 2.4? I've looked for how to tune the 2.4 VM for some time, but never found anything. Ben -- Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Ethernet bridge performance, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [RFC] High Performance Packet Classifiction for tc framework, jamal |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Ethernet bridge performance, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Ethernet bridge performance, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |