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 <[email protected]> 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. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
