From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2005-discuss] Summary of 2005 Kernel Summit Proposed Topics Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:24:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: References: <4241D106.8050302@cs.wisc.edu> <20050324101622S.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> <1111628393.1548.307.camel@beastie> <20050324113312W.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> <1111633846.1548.318.camel@beastie> <20050324215922.GT14202@opteron.random> <424346FE.20704@cs.wisc.edu> <20050324233921.GZ14202@opteron.random> <20050325034341.GV32638@waste.org> <20050327035149.GD4053@g5.random> <20050327054831.GA15453@waste.org> <1111905181.4753.15.camel@mylaptop> <20050326224621.61f6d917.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Dmitry Yusupov , mpm@selenic.com, andrea@suse.de, michaelc@cs.wisc.edu, open-iscsi@googlegroups.com, James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com, ksummit-2005-discuss@thunk.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Andi Kleen In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Andi Kleen wrote: > So in short using mempools on receiving is not needed. It is, because you have to ensure that the memory that's needed to receive network packets isn't tied up receiving packets for non-critical sockets, which would leave the critical sockets deadlocked. -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan