linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel/async.c:introduce async_schedule*

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <d82e647a0905122027k61461dc5k8362c963fbca7894@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 13 May 2009 11:27:10 +0800
From:	Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
To:	Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, arjan@...radead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/async.c:introduce async_schedule*_atomic

2009/5/13 Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>:
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 18:52:29 +0200,
> Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.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.

So we introduce  async_schedule*_inatomic(), the patch  aims at  making caller
clear that async_schedule*_inatomic() should be used in atomic
contexts instead of
async_schedule*().

>
>> - async_schedule_nosync() would be only nosync() and would use
>>   GFP_KERNEL

I wonder if there is such kind of requirement, can we not introduce it
in the patch?
If someone does need it, we can introduce it later.

>>
>> 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?
>

IMHO, it is better that async_schedule()  is always called in
non-atomic contexts and
async_schedule*_inatomic() is always called in atomic contexts, so we
can't need a gfp
flag, right?


-- 
Lei Ming
--
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/