[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] kernel/async.c:introduce async_schedule*_atomic
    2009/5/13 Cornelia Huck <>:
    > On Tue, 12 May 2009 18:52:29 +0200,
    > Frederic Weisbecker <> 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.

    So we introduce async_schedule*_inatomic(), the patch aims at making caller
    clear that async_schedule*_inatomic() should be used in atomic
    contexts instead of

    >> - async_schedule_nosync() would be only nosync() and would use
    >>   GFP_KERNEL

    I wonder if there is such kind of requirement, can we not introduce it
    in the patch?
    If someone does need it, we can introduce it later.

    >> 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, it is better that async_schedule() is always called in
    non-atomic contexts and
    async_schedule*_inatomic() is always called in atomic contexts, so we
    can't need a gfp
    flag, right?

    Lei Ming
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-05-13 05:29    [W:0.021 / U:402.504 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site