On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 15:41 +0200, Sebastien Dugue wrote: > On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:23:01 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > BTW. It would be good to try to turn the GFP_ATOMIC into GFP_KERNEL, > > That would be nice indeed > > > maybe using a semaphore instead of a lock to protect insertion vs. > > initialisation. > > a semaphore? are you meaning a mutex? If not, I fail to understand what > you're > implying.
Right, a mutex, bad habit calling those semaphores from the old days :-) > Right, that's the problem with this new scheme and I'm still trying > to find a way to handle memory allocation failures be it for GFP_ATOMIC or > GFP_KERNEL. > > I could not think of anything simple so far and I'm open for suggestions. GFP_KERNEL should not fail, it will just block no ? If it fails, it's probably catastrophic enough not to care. You can always fallback to linear lookup. I don't know if it's worth trying to fire off a new allocation attempt later, probably not. Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
