On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 09:55:45AM -0800, Sridhar Samudrala wrote: > On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 10:22 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > I would appreciate any feedback or comments on this approach. > > > > Maybe I'm missing something but wouldn't you need an own critical > > pool (or at least reservation) for each socket to be safe against deadlocks? > > > > Otherwise if a critical sockets needs e.g. 2 pages to finish something > > and 2 critical sockets are active they can each steal the last pages > > from each other and deadlock. > > Here we are assuming that the pre-allocated critical page pool is big enough > to satisfy the requirements of all the critical sockets.
Not a good assumption. A system can have between 1-1000 iSCSI connections open and we certainly don't want to preallocate enough room for 1000 connections to make progress when we might only have one in use. I think we need a global receive pool and per-socket send pools. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
