[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080903154105.7dff49db@bull.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 15:41:05 +0200
From: Sebastien Dugue <sebastien.dugue@...l.net>
To: benh@...nel.crashing.org
Cc: linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, paulus@...ba.org,
michael@...erman.id.au, jean-pierre.dion@...l.net,
gilles.carry@....bull.net, tinytim@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
rostedt@...dmis.org, dwalker@...sta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] powerpc - Make the irq reverse mapping radix tree
lockless
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:23:01 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.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.
--
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