On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:03:21 -0700
Roland Dreier <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I suspect it'll get really ugly. It's a container library which needs to
> > allocate memory when items are added, like the radix-tree. Either it needs
> > to assume GFP_ATOMIC, which is bad and can easily fail or it does weird
> > things like radix_tree_preload().
>
> Actually I don't think it has to be too bad. We could tweak the
> interface a little bit so that consumers do something like:
>
> struct idr_layer *layer = NULL; /* opaque */
>
> retry:
> spin_lock(&my_idr_lock);
> ret = idr_get_new(&my_idr, ptr, &id, layer);
> spin_unlock(&my_idr_lock);
>
> if (ret == -EAGAIN) {
> layer = idr_alloc_layer(&my_idr, GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!IS_ERR(layer))
> goto retry;
> }
>
> in other words make the consumer responsible for passing in new memory
> that can be used for a new entry (or freed if other entries have
> become free in the meantime).
>
Good point, a try-again loop would work. Do we really need the caller to
maintain a cache? I suspect something like
drat:
if (idr_pre_get(GFP_KERNEL) == ENOMEM)
give_up();
spin_lock();
ret = idr_get_new();
spin_unlock();
if (ret == ENOMEM)
goto drat;
would do it.
-
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]
