On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > Don't you think it would be useful to have some reserved memory for > the netconsole use ? > It would be nice to have a guarantee that messages are sent over > network even if the system is under real OOM. yep, that is very useful indeed. i've implemented a private emergency pool of 32 packets that we try to keep filled as much as possible, and which one we use only if GFP_ATOMIC fails. The new patch can downloaded from: http://redhat.com/~mingo/netconsole-patches/netconsole-2.4.10-B1 the patch also includes Andrew Morton's suggestion to add the HAVE_POLL_CONTROLLER define for easier network-driver integration. The eepro100.c changes now use this define. the new utilities-tarball is at: http://redhat.com/~mingo/netconsole-patches/netconsole-client-20010927.tar.gz this includes Andreas Dilger's netconsole-server script. (i've done a minor modification to the script, it insmods the netconsole module with the parameters.) there is one more thing we could do: we could also allocate the skb on stack in extreme cases. This adds noticeable latency though, since the skb xmit has to be polled for completion as well [this can be done with the current ->poll_controller() method], but this way the netconsole could be self-sufficient and would be completely independent of the VM. reports, suggestions, comments welcome, Ingo - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
