Re: refill_inactive()

From: Arjan van de Ven (adve@oce.nl)
Date: Tue Sep 26 2000 - 02:17:13 EST


In article <Pine.LNX.4.10.10009250914100.1666-100000@penguin.transmeta.com> you wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>
>> Hmmm, doesn't GFP_BUFFER simply imply that we cannot
>> allocate new buffer heads to do IO with??

> The name is a misnomer, partly due to historical reasons (the buffer cache
> used to be fragile, and if you free'd buffer cache pages while you were
> trying to allocate new ones you could cause BadThings(tm) to happen), but
> partly just because the only _user_ of it is the buffer cache.

And the network-stack in net/core/sock.c:sock_alloc_send_skb which sounds
like a bug in this case, and might even be the cause of too many GFP_BUFFER
allocations in loads suchs as Ingo's.

Greetings,
   Arjan van de Ven

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 21:00:17 EST