[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1441114848.8932.172.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 06:40:48 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: tgraf@...g.ch, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, fengguang.wu@...el.com,
wfg@...ux.intel.com, lkp@...org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] rhashtable-test: retry insert operations in threads
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.
--
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