netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Martin Jackson <mjackson220.list@gmail.com>
To: James Carlson <carlsonj@workingcode.com>
Cc: paulus@samba.org, linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ppp_deflate + kmalloc
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 23:17:54 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <BANLkTinMNb65nyo+Y8xhpTP2RC6x06ZJqQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4E049900.4080402@workingcode.com>

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:02 PM, James Carlson <carlsonj@workingcode.com> wrote:
> Martin Jackson wrote:
>> In our android froyo-based system (omap3 hardware), we are getting the
>> following problem where the ppp driver cannot kmalloc enough memory
>> for the decomp buffer in the ppp driver.
>>
>> Trying to make a 4th-order kmalloc (I think that amounts to 64kB)
>> seems ambitious. I do not understand why vmalloc is not being used
>> here, like it is for the compression buffer. Is using vmalloc here an
>> acceptable solution?
>
> The code here shouldn't need contiguous pages, so vmalloc (even if
> "slower") shouldn't be a problem.
>
> But a higher-level question might be why you're bothering with RFC 1979
> Deflate compression at all on this platform.  I'd expect that you're
> most likely going to end up talking to commercially-produced PPP servers
> (possibly 3GPP or similar) at the other end, and very, very few of them
> offer data compression with either RFC 1977 (BSD Compression) or RFC
> 1979.  ("Very, very few" is probably being generous ...)
>
> If it's always going to be negotiated away in practice, and if you're
> having trouble with memory constraints, why not just ditch the baggage?
>
> --
> James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <carlsonj@workingcode.com>
>

Thanks for the advice. Hopefully we can indeed remove these obscure
PPP options from our configuration - I'll look into that.

However, the point still stands that a 4th order kmalloc is likely to
fail (even our "embedded" device has 256MB RAM and slub allocator,
after all), and the page allocation code regards anything above order
3 as unrealistic and doesn't invoke the OOM to try to satisfy it, so
my view remains that this should be changed to vmalloc.

Best regards,

Martin Jackson

  reply	other threads:[~2011-06-26 21:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-06-24 13:41 ppp_deflate + kmalloc Martin Jackson
2011-06-24 14:02 ` James Carlson
2011-06-26 21:17   ` Martin Jackson [this message]
2011-06-28  4:15     ` David Miller

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=BANLkTinMNb65nyo+Y8xhpTP2RC6x06ZJqQ@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=mjackson220.list@gmail.com \
    --cc=carlsonj@workingcode.com \
    --cc=linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).