[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131226213727.GA10259@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 23:37:27 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Michael Dalton <mwdalton@...gle.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
lf-virt <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] virtio-net: use per-receive queue page frag
alloc for mergeable bufs
On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 01:28:58PM -0800, Michael Dalton wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> > So there isn't a conflict with respect to locking.
> >
> > Is it problematic to use same page_frag with both GFP_ATOMIC and with
> > GFP_KERNEL? If yes why?
>
> I believe it is safe to use the same page_frag and I will send out a
> followup patchset using just the per-receive page_frags.
Seems easier to use it straight away I think.
> For future
> consideration, Eric noted that disabling NAPI before GFP_KERNEL
> allocs can potentially inhibit virtio-net network processing for some
> time (e.g., during a blocking memory allocation or preemption).
>
> Best,
>
> Mike
Interesting. But if we can't allocate a buffer how can we
do network processing?
If we can reproduce the problem, we can maybe move
allocation out of napi disabled section, but then
we'll need to add more locking.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists