From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sebastien.dugue@bull.net>
Received: from ecfrec.frec.bull.fr (ecfrec.frec.bull.fr [129.183.4.8])
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A303DDF14
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Thu,  4 Sep 2008 17:55:18 +1000 (EST)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 09:55:07 +0200
From: Sebastien Dugue <sebastien.dugue@bull.net>
To: benh@kernel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] powerpc - Make the irq reverse mapping radix tree
	lockless
Message-ID: <20080904095507.207d1091@bull.net>
In-Reply-To: <1220513643.4879.68.camel@pasglop>
References: <1218029429-21114-1-git-send-email-sebastien.dugue@bull.net>
	<1218029429-21114-3-git-send-email-sebastien.dugue@bull.net>
	<1219209781.21386.25.camel@pasglop>
	<20080903154105.7dff49db@bull.net>
	<1220496739.4879.20.camel@pasglop>
	<20080904092252.12b3df4a@bull.net>
	<1220513643.4879.68.camel@pasglop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: dwalker@mvista.com, tinytim@us.ibm.com, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
	jean-pierre.dion@bull.net, rostedt@goodmis.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, michael@ellerman.id.au,
	linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org,
	gilles.carry@ext.bull.net, tglx@linutronix.de
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/options/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:34:03 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:

> 
> > > >   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).
> 
> hrm... it used to never fail.. that may have changed. But it will
> definitely block and try very hard to push things out to make space,
> which is the whole point :-)

  Right, but it still can fail - and you're right, we're in trouble already.
Last time I dug into slab code I got lost into the maze :(

> 
> >   I will have to add that back as there is no more fallback.
> 
> Well, the must be one in the case the tree isn't initialized yet,

  

> so if
> there's an allocation failure, you may "de-initialize" it or
> something...

  There's nothing to 'de-initialize' here, or am I missing something?
radix_tree_insert() will return ENOMEM and won't insert anything.

> Or you can fallback if you don't find, as easy, probably
> easier since it shouldn't happen in practice.

  That's what I had in mind.

> 
> > > 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.
> 
> Yup.
> 

  Thanks Ben,

  Sebastien.