lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] kernel/async.c:introduce async_schedule*_atomic
From
2009/5/13 Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>:
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 18:52:29 +0200,
> Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This division would make more sense indeed.
>>
>> - async_schedule_inatomic() would be nosync() and would use
>>   GFP_ATOMIC. I guess the case where we want to run
>>   a job synchronously from atomic in case of async failure is too rare
>>   (non-existent?).
>
> It would add complexity for those callers providing a function that is
> safe to be called in both contexts.
>
>> - async_schedule_nosync() would be only nosync() and would use
>>   GFP_KERNEL
>>
>> I'm not sure the second case will ever be used though.
>
> It might make sense for the "just fail if we cannot get memory" case.
>
>>
>> Another alternative would be to define a single async_schedule_nosync()
>> which also takes a gfp flag.
>
> Wouldn't async_schedule() then need a gfp flag as well?
>

IMHO, we should call async_schedule*() from non-atomic contexts and
async_schedule_inatomic*() from atomic contexts explicitly, so
async_schedule*()
use GFP_KERNEL and async_schedule_inatomic*() use GFP_ATOMIC
always. This can simplify the problem much more.

Also we still allow async_schedule*() to run a job synchronously if
out of memory
or other failure. This can keep consistency with before.

Any sugesstions or objections?

--
Lei Ming
--
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-05-13 02:31    [W:0.088 / U:0.840 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site