On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 15:41 +0200, Sebastien Dugue wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:23:01 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> 
> > BTW. It would be good to try to turn the GFP_ATOMIC into GFP_KERNEL,
> 
>   That would be nice indeed
> 
> > 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 :-)

quoted text
>   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 ? If it fails, it's
probably catastrophic enough not to care. You can always fallback to
linear lookup. I don't know if it's worth trying to fire off a new
allocation attempt later, probably not.

Ben.


--
unsubscribe notice
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/