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

[Ming Lei]

2009/5/13 Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 18:52:29 +0200,
> Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
>
>> - async_schedule_nosync() would be only nosync() and would use
>>   GFP_KERNEL
>>
>> 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, we should call async_schedule*() from non-atomic contexts and
async_schedule_inatomic*() from atomic contexts explicitly, so
async_schedule*()
use GFP_KERNEL and async_schedule_inatomic*() use GFP_ATOMIC
always. This can simplify the problem much more.

Also we still allow async_schedule*()  to run a job synchronously if
out of memory
or other failure. This can keep consistency with before.

Any sugesstions or objections?

-- 
Lei Ming
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/