From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752110AbdFLMcf (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2017 08:32:35 -0400 Received: from relay1.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.131]:65465 "EHLO relay1.mentorg.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752043AbdFLMcd (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2017 08:32:33 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC V1 1/1] net: cdc_ncm: Reduce memory use when kernel memory low To: Oliver Neukum References: <04bc5b49-9282-a6ca-2b95-fb8fc9750555@mentor.com> <20170522.115426.1239443379414364630.davem@davemloft.net> <1495528968.2174.2.camel@suse.com> <20170523.112625.33559883707681029.davem@davemloft.net> <97db8a45-55ec-b68f-6f88-e934f67d31fc@mentor.com> <1497263047.15677.13.camel@suse.com> From: "Baxter, Jim" CC: "David S. Miller" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-usb@vger.kernel.org" Message-ID: <7f2d3f89-7d87-f4ab-9799-559388602e76@mentor.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 13:32:26 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1497263047.15677.13.camel@suse.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [137.202.0.87] X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) To SVR-IES-MBX-03.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Oliver Neukum (oneukum@suse.com) Sent: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 12:24:07 +0200 > Am Dienstag, den 23.05.2017, 20:06 +0100 schrieb Jim Baxter: >> From: David S. Miller (davem@davemloft.net) >> Sent: Tue, 23 May 2017 11:26:25 -0400 >>> >>> From: Oliver Neukum >>> Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 10:42:48 +0200 >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> We could use a counter. After the first failure, do it once, after the >>>> second twice and so on. And reset the counter as a higher order >>>> allocation works. (just bound it somewhere) >>> >>> So an exponential backoff, that might work. >>> >> >> As an idea I have created this patch as an addition to the original patch >> in this series. >> >> Would this be acceptable? >> >> At the moment I have capped the value at 10, does anyone think it needs to >> be much higher then that? > > Hi, > > I am working through mail backlog. If I may ask, has this patch proposal > had a result or does something need to be done still? > > Regards > Oliver > Hi, I have not received any response to my additional patch yet. Do you think I should submit it as a second RFC patchset? Regards, Jim