Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] TCP/IP Critical socket communication mechanism

From: Bodo Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 09:35:20 +0100

David S. Miller <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The idea to mark, for example, IPSEC key management daemon's sockets
> as critical is flawed, because the key management daemon could hit a
> swap page over the iSCSI device.  Don't even start with the idea to
> lock the IPSEC key management daemon into ram with mlock().

How are you going to swap in the key manager if you need the key manager
for doing this?

However, I'd prefer a system where you can't dirty mor than (e.g.) 80 % of
RAM unless you need this to maintain vital system activity and not more
than 95 % unless it will help to get more clean RAM. (Like the priority
inheritance suggestion from this thread.) I suppose this to least
significantly reduce thrashing and give a very good chance of recovering
from memory pressure. Off cause the implementation won't be easy,
especially if userspace applications need to inherit priority from
different code paths, but in theory, it can be done.

-- 
Ich danke GMX dafür, die Verwendung meiner Adressen mittels per SPF
verbreiteten Lügen zu sabotieren.