From: Sebastien Dugue <sebastien.dugue@bull.net>
To: benh@kernel.crashing.org
Cc: dwalker@mvista.com, tinytim@us.ibm.com,
linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
rostedt@goodmis.org, jean-pierre.dion@bull.net,
michael@ellerman.id.au, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org,
paulus@samba.org, gilles.carry@ext.bull.net, tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] powerpc - Make the irq reverse mapping radix tree lockless
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 15:41:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080903154105.7dff49db@bull.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1219209781.21386.25.camel@pasglop>
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.
> The old scheme was fine because if the atomic allocation
> failed, it could fallback to the linear search and try again on the next
> interrupt. Not anymore.
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.
Thanks,
Sebastien.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sebastien Dugue <sebastien.dugue@bull.net>
To: benh@kernel.crashing.org
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, paulus@samba.org,
michael@ellerman.id.au, jean-pierre.dion@bull.net,
gilles.carry@ext.bull.net, tinytim@us.ibm.com,
tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org, dwalker@mvista.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] powerpc - Make the irq reverse mapping radix tree lockless
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 15:41:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080903154105.7dff49db@bull.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1219209781.21386.25.camel@pasglop>
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.
> The old scheme was fine because if the atomic allocation
> failed, it could fallback to the linear search and try again on the next
> interrupt. Not anymore.
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.
Thanks,
Sebastien.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-09-03 13:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-08-06 13:30 [PATCH 0/2 V3] powerpc - Make the irq reverse mapping tree lockless Sebastien Dugue
2008-08-06 13:30 ` Sebastien Dugue
2008-08-06 13:30 ` [PATCH 1/2] powerpc - Separate the irq radix tree insertion and lookup Sebastien Dugue
2008-08-06 13:30 ` Sebastien Dugue
2008-08-20 5:21 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-08-20 5:21 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-09-03 13:34 ` Sebastien Dugue
2008-09-03 13:34 ` Sebastien Dugue
2008-08-06 13:30 ` [PATCH 2/2] powerpc - Make the irq reverse mapping radix tree lockless Sebastien Dugue
2008-08-06 13:30 ` Sebastien Dugue
2008-08-20 5:22 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-08-20 5:22 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-09-03 13:34 ` Sebastien Dugue
2008-09-03 13:34 ` Sebastien Dugue
2008-08-20 5:23 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-08-20 5:23 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-09-03 13:41 ` Sebastien Dugue [this message]
2008-09-03 13:41 ` Sebastien Dugue
2008-09-04 2:52 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-09-04 2:52 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-09-04 7:22 ` Sebastien Dugue
2008-09-04 7:22 ` Sebastien Dugue
2008-09-04 7:34 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-09-04 7:34 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-09-04 7:55 ` Sebastien Dugue
2008-09-04 7:55 ` Sebastien Dugue
2008-09-04 7:58 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-09-04 7:58 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-09-04 8:04 ` Sebastien Dugue
2008-09-04 8:04 ` Sebastien Dugue
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-09-04 12:37 [PATCH 0/2 V4] powerpc - Make the irq reverse mapping " Sebastien Dugue
2008-09-04 12:37 ` [PATCH 2/2] powerpc - Make the irq reverse mapping radix " Sebastien Dugue
2008-09-04 12:37 ` Sebastien Dugue
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080903154105.7dff49db@bull.net \
--to=sebastien.dugue@bull.net \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=dwalker@mvista.com \
--cc=gilles.carry@ext.bull.net \
--cc=jean-pierre.dion@bull.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=michael@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tinytim@us.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.