[Top] [All Lists]


To: Dmitry Yusupov <dmitry_yus@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NETLINK_UESTABLISHED notifier event
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 07:32:31 +1000
Cc: Mike Christie <michaelc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1112826385.16753.99.camel@beastie>
References: <E1DJ0YI-0003PR-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <42540CF3.7070501@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20050406212906.GA24775@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1112823442.16753.68.camel@beastie> <20050406220417.GA4443@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1112826385.16753.99.camel@beastie>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 03:26:25PM -0700, Dmitry Yusupov wrote:
> Messages from kernel are asynchronous and there are no alloc_skb on "up"
> calls. It is "mempooled out" on interface level. (see Open-iSCSI
> interface). Messages to kernel requires copy_from_user to newly
> allocated skb, here is where we need sk_allocation bit set. Those
> messages are synchronous from daemon perspective. If "down" call fails,
> we will re-try later or take some other management action. We assuming
> that later OOM-killer will free some memory for us and atomic allocation
> will succeed eventually.

I presume you only need to send one message at a time of a fixed size.
Would it better to always have an skb allocated for the socket so that
we don't need to allocate at sendmsg time?

Visit Openswan at
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home Page:
PGP Key:

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>