Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 02 Sep 2003 18:44:51 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] might_sleep() improvements |
| |
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>Nick Piggin wrote: > >>I think these should be pushed down to where the sleeping >>actually happens if possible. >> > >No, that ends up doing the wrong thing for most of the really common cases. > >In particular, most of the memory allocation functions very seldom actually >sleep. After all, they'll find plenty of free memory (or easily freeable >memory) without having to wait for any pageouts or anything like that. > >Yet the bug is there - the call _could_ have slept. > >So "might_sleep()" really does what the name suggests: it is used to say >that a particular case _may_ sleep, even if it ends up being unlikely. > >Because what we're after is not a bug actually happening, but a latent bug >that has been hidden by the fact that it happens so rarely in practice. > >This is why "might_sleep()" should happen as early as possible, and not >get pushed down. > >
Yes I see. I agree. I thought some could be pushed down further without losing info. I was mainly worried about adding the might_sleep_if function.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |