From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] rhashtable-test: retry insert operations in threads Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 06:40:48 -0700 Message-ID: <1441114848.8932.172.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> References: <20150829090701.GN20760@orbit.nwl.cc> <20150830074717.GA25396@gondor.apana.org.au> <20150831110012.GO20760@orbit.nwl.cc> <20150901114300.GB12691@gondor.apana.org.au> <20150901124648.GA27550@orbit.nwl.cc> <20150901130057.GA13230@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: tgraf@suug.ch, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, fengguang.wu@intel.com, wfg@linux.intel.com, lkp@01.org To: Herbert Xu Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150901130057.GA13230@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2015-09-01 at 21:00 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 02:46:48PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: > > > > This is not an inherent behaviour of the implementation but general > > agreement. The insertion may fail non-permanently (returning -EBUSY), > > users are expected to handle this by retrying the operation. > > Absolutely not. The only reason for an insertion to fail is if we > can't allocate enough memory. Unless the user is also looping its > kmalloc calls it definitely shouldn't be retrying the insert. > > If an expansion fails it means either that the system is suffering > a catastrophic memory shortage, or the user of rhashtable is doing > something wrong. -EBUSY does not sound as a memory allocation error.