On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 04:23:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 08:36 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > Comments? > > Last time I brought up the whole swap over network bits I was pointed > towards the generic skb recycling work: > > http://lwn.net/Articles/332037/ > > as a means to pre-allocate memory, I'd taken note of this to take a much closer look if it turned out reservations were necessary and to find out what happened with these patches. So far, bigger reservations have *not* been required but I agree recycling SKBs may be a better alternative than large reservations or preallocations if they are necessary. > and it was suggested to simply pin > the few route-cache entries required to route these packets and > dis-allow swap packets to be fragmented (these last two avoid lots of > funny allocation cases in the network stack). > I did find that only a few route-cache entries should be required. In the original patches I worked with, there was a reservation for the maximum possible number of route-cache entries. I thought this was overkill and instead reserved 1-per-active-swapfile-backed-by-NFS. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>