[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> use TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE instead of TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE
>
> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Signed-off-by: Domen Puncer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
>
>
> kj-domen/drivers/base/dmapool.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff -puN drivers/base/dmapool.c~task_unint-drivers_base_dmapool
> drivers/base/dmapool.c
> --- kj/drivers/base/dmapool.c~task_unint-drivers_base_dmapool
> 2005-03-05 16:11:21.000000000 +0100
> +++ kj-domen/drivers/base/dmapool.c 2005-03-05 16:11:21.000000000 +0100
> @@ -293,7 +293,7 @@ restart:
> if (mem_flags & __GFP_WAIT) {
> DECLARE_WAITQUEUE (wait, current);
>
> - current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE;
> + set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> add_wait_queue (&pool->waitq, &wait);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore (&pool->lock, flags);
This code is alread a bit odd. If we're prepared to sleep in there, then
why use GFP_ATOMIC?
If it is so that we can dig a bit deeper into the free page pools then
something like __GFP_WAIT|__GFP_HIGH would be preferable.
And why isn't mem_flags passed into pool_alloc_page() verbatim?
I agree on the TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE change: if the calling task happens to
have signal_pending() then the schedule_timeout() will fall right through.
Why should we change kernel memory allocation strategy if the user hit ^C?
Also, __set_current_state() can be user here: the add_wait_queue() contains
the necessary barriers. (Grubby, but we do that in quite a few places with
this particular code sequence (we should have an add_wait_queue() variant
which does the add_wait_queue+__set_current_state all in one hit (but let's
not, else I'll be buried in another 1000 cleanuplets))).
-
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/
