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.

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*().

>
>> - 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 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 05:29    [W:0.154 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site