The radix trees used by interrupt controllers for their irq reverse mapping
(currently only the XICS found on pSeries) have a complex locking scheme
dating back to before the advent of the lockless radix tree.
Take advantage of this and of the fact that the items of the tree are
pointers to a
On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:58:56 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > There's nothing to 'de-initialize' here, or am I missing something?
> > radix_tree_insert() will return ENOMEM and won't insert anything.
>
> Forget my comment, just fallback.
>
> > > Or you can fallba
> There's nothing to 'de-initialize' here, or am I missing something?
> radix_tree_insert() will return ENOMEM and won't insert anything.
Forget my comment, just fallback.
> > Or you can fallback if you don't find, as easy, probably
> > easier since it shouldn't happen in practice.
>
> That
On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:34:03 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > > > 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 ?
> >
> > No it won't block and will fail (returns
> > > 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 ?
>
> No it won't block and will fail (returns NULL).
hrm... it used to never fail.. that may have changed. But it will
definitely block and try v
On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:52:19 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 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_AT
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
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
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:22:06 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:30 +0200, Sebastien Dugue wrote:
> > The radix trees used by interrupt controllers for their irq reverse mapping
> > (currently only the XICS found on pSeries) have a complex locking sc
BTW. It would be good to try to turn the GFP_ATOMIC into GFP_KERNEL,
maybe using a semaphore instead of a lock to protect insertion vs.
initialisation. The old scheme was fine because if the atomic allocation
failed, it could fallback to the linear search and try again on the next
interrupt. Not an
On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:30 +0200, Sebastien Dugue wrote:
> The radix trees used by interrupt controllers for their irq reverse mapping
> (currently only the XICS found on pSeries) have a complex locking scheme
> dating back to before the advent of the lockless radix tree.
>
> Take advantage of
The radix trees used by interrupt controllers for their irq reverse mapping
(currently only the XICS found on pSeries) have a complex locking scheme
dating back to before the advent of the lockless radix tree.
Take advantage of this and of the fact that the items of the tree are
pointers to a
12 matches
Mail list logo
