From: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: tom.leiming@gmail.com, arjan@infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/async.c:introduce async_schedule*_atomic
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 19:18:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090512191848.25764af6@gondolin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090512165227.GE6255@nowhere>
On Tue, 12 May 2009 18:52:29 +0200,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> This division would make more sense indeed.
>
> - async_schedule_inatomic() would be nosync() and would use
> GFP_ATOMIC. I guess the case where we want to run
> a job synchronously from atomic in case of async failure is too rare
> (non-existent?).
It would add complexity for those callers providing a function that is
safe to be called in both contexts.
> - async_schedule_nosync() would be only nosync() and would use
> GFP_KERNEL
>
> I'm not sure the second case will ever be used though.
It might make sense for the "just fail if we cannot get memory" case.
>
> Another alternative would be to define a single async_schedule_nosync()
> which also takes a gfp flag.
Wouldn't async_schedule() then need a gfp flag as well?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-12 17:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-12 15:13 [PATCH] kernel/async.c:introduce async_schedule*_atomic tom.leiming
2009-05-12 15:44 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2009-05-12 15:58 ` Américo Wang
2009-05-13 0:36 ` Ming Lei
2009-05-12 16:04 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2009-05-12 16:31 ` Cornelia Huck
2009-05-12 16:52 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2009-05-12 17:18 ` Cornelia Huck [this message]
2009-05-13 0:28 ` Ming Lei
2009-05-13 1:20 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2009-05-13 7:47 ` Cornelia Huck
2009-05-17 20:59 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-05-18 11:29 ` Cornelia Huck
2009-05-13 3:27 ` Ming Lei
2009-05-13 0:16 ` Ming Lei
2009-05-17 20:26 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-05-18 1:55 ` Ming Lei
2009-05-18 4:18 ` Arjan van de Ven
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=20090512191848.25764af6@gondolin \
--to=cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tom.leiming@gmail.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox