[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <2F5C851A-CE28-4159-AC60-8D42884E6EF1@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 09:47:53 +0200
From: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
To: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>
Cc: "tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
"axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"samuele.zecchini92@...il.com" <samuele.zecchini92@...il.com>,
"fchecconi@...il.com" <fchecconi@...il.com>,
"linus.walleij@...aro.org" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Arianna Avanzini <avanzini.arianna@...il.com>,
"broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>,
"riccardo.pizzetti@...il.com" <riccardo.pizzetti@...il.com>,
"ulf.hansson@...aro.org" <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 11/16] block, bfq: reduce idling only in symmetric scenarios
> Il giorno 31 mar 2017, alle ore 17:20, Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com> ha scritto:
>
> On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 14:47 +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
>> + entity->weight_counter = kzalloc(sizeof(struct bfq_weight_counter),
>> + GFP_ATOMIC);
>> + entity->weight_counter->weight = entity->weight;
>
> GFP_ATOMIC allocations are more likely to fail than GFP_KERNEL allocations.
> What will happen if kzalloc() returns NULL?
>
A plain crash :( I'm adding the simple handling of this forgotten exception. If I don't get other reviews in the next days, I'll post a V3 addressing this and the other issue you highlighted.
Thanks,
Paolo
> Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists