> i agree that the IDR subsystem should be irq-safe if GFP_ATOMIC is
> passed in. So the _irqsave()/_irqrestore() fix should be done.
OK, I will send the idr change to Andrew.
> But i also think that you should avoid using GFP_ATOMIC for any sort of
> reliable IO path and push as much work into process context as possible.
> Is it acceptable for your infiniband IO model to fail with -ENOMEM if
> GFP_ATOMIC happens to fail, and is the IO retried transparently?
Yes, I think it's OK. This idr use is in an inherently unreliable
path. With that said, as Michael pointed out, we can change things to
use GFP_ATOMIC less.
Thanks,
Roland
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
