[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

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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean