[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070604234354.GC31462@havoc.gtf.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 19:43:54 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: "Keshavamurthy, Anil S" <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...l.org, ak@...e.de,
gregkh@...e.de, muli@...ibm.com, asit.k.mallick@...el.com,
suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
ashok.raj@...el.com, shaohua.li@...el.com, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [Intel-IOMMU 02/10] Library routines for handling pre-allocated pool of objects
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 04:06:49PM -0700, Keshavamurthy, Anil S wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 06:57:14PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > you should add logic to free resources here (or queue_work to free the
> > resources), if the pool grows beyond a certain size.
> Can be added as an add on, testing showed that pool
> grows to a certain size and will not grow beyond that
> as we tend to reuse the elements.
Yes, but is it possible? If no, what part of the code guarantees the
pool is limited?
We should not merge code that allows the pool to grow without bound.
In-house testing certainly never covers all the cases seen in the
field, so I wouldn't make too many assumptions based on that. Some
vendor will inevitably build a $BigNum system where the IOMMU is very
heavily used.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists