lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync
On Mon, Nov 20 2006, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> > > > Must we introduce memory allocations in srcu_read_lock()? It makes it
> > > > much harder and nastier for me to use. I'd much prefer a failing
> > > > init_srcu(), seems like a much better API.
> > >
> > > Paul agrees with you that allocation failures in init_srcu() should be
> > > passed back to the caller, and I certainly don't mind doing so.
> > >
> > > However we can't remove the memory allocation in srcu_read_lock(). That
> > > was the point which started this whole thread: the per-cpu allocation
> > > cannot be done statically, and some users of a static SRCU structure can't
> > > easily call init_srcu() early enough.
> > >
> > > Once the allocation succeeds, the overhead in srcu_read_lock() is minimal.
> >
> > It's not about the overhead, it's about a potentially problematic
> > allocation.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "problematic allocation". If you
> successfully call init_srcu_struct then the allocation will be taken care
> of. Later calls to srcu_read_lock won't experience any slowdowns or
> problems.

That requires init_srcu_struct() to return the error. If it does that,
I'm fine with it.

> Does this answer your objection? If not, can you explain in more detail
> what other features you would like?

It does, if the allocation failure in init_srcu_struct() is signalled.

--
Jens Axboe

-
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: 2006-11-21 08:43    [W:0.337 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site