On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:52:19 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt [off-list ref] wrote:
On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 15:41 +0200, Sebastien Dugue wrote:
quoted
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:23:01 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
BTW. It would be good to try to turn the GFP_ATOMIC into GFP_KERNEL,
That would be nice indeed
quoted
maybe using a semaphore instead of a lock to protect insertion vs.
initialisation.
a semaphore? are you meaning a mutex? If not, I fail to understand what you're
implying.
Right, a mutex, bad habit calling those semaphores from the old days :-)
OK, then we're on the same line ;-)
quoted
Right, that's the problem with this new scheme and I'm still trying
to find a way to handle memory allocation failures be it for GFP_ATOMIC or
GFP_KERNEL.
I could not think of anything simple so far and I'm open for suggestions.
GFP_KERNEL should not fail, it will just block no ?
No it won't block and will fail (returns NULL).
If it fails, it's
probably catastrophic enough not to care.
Yep, I'd tend to agree with that.
You can always fallback to linear lookup.
I will have to add that back as there is no more fallback.
I don't know if it's worth trying to fire off a new
allocation attempt later, probably not.
I've been pondering with this lately, but I think that adding a linear
lookup fallback should be OK.
Thanks,
Sebastien.
Ben.
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev