On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:08 AM, Ted Unangst wrote:
>> So it's not a good idea to perform long lasting operations in the kernel.
>> The scheduler doesn't deal well with it and nobody else gets to run.
>>
>> One of those long loops is loadi
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:08 AM, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > So it's not a good idea to perform long lasting operations in the kernel.
> > The scheduler doesn't deal well with it and nobody else gets to run.
> >
> > One of those long loops is loading a large table into pf. If you're
> > lucky, you'l
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:08 AM, Ted Unangst wrote:
> So it's not a good idea to perform long lasting operations in the kernel.
> The scheduler doesn't deal well with it and nobody else gets to run.
>
> One of those long loops is loading a large table into pf. If you're
> lucky, you'll run out of
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 08:08:34PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> So it's not a good idea to perform long lasting operations in the kernel.
> The scheduler doesn't deal well with it and nobody else gets to run.
>
> One of those long loops is loading a large table into pf. If you're
> lucky, you'l
So it's not a good idea to perform long lasting operations in the kernel.
The scheduler doesn't deal well with it and nobody else gets to run.
One of those long loops is loading a large table into pf. If you're
lucky, you'll run out of memory and pool will finally sleep.
I stuck a couple yiel