On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:44:42 -0700
"Keshavamurthy, Anil S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the first implementation of ours, we had used mempools api's to
> allocate memory and we were told that mempools with GFP_ATOMIC is
> useless and hence in the second implementation we came up with
> resource pools ( which is preallocate pools) and again as I understand
> the argument is why create another when we have slab allocation which
> is similar to this resource pools.
Odd. mempool with GFP_ATOMIC is basically equivalent to your
resource-pools, isn't it?: we'll try the slab allocator and if that failed,
fall back to the reserves.
It's missing the recharge-from-a-kernel-thread functionality but that can be
added easily enough if it's useful. It's slightly abusive of the mempool
philosophy, but it's probably better to do that than to create a new and
very-similar thing.
> Hence, can I assume that the conclusion of this
> discussion is to use kmem_cache_alloc() functions
> to allocate memory in dma_map_{single|sg} API's?
>
> Again, if dma_map_{single|sg} API's fails due to
> failure to allocate memory, the only thing that can
> be done is to panic as this is what few of the other
> IOMMU implementation is doing today.
If the only option is to panic then something's busted. If it's network IO
then there should be a way of dropping the frame. If it's disk IO then we
should report the failure and cause an IO error.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
