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.

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/