Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] generic device DMA (dma_pool update) | Date | Wed, 01 Jan 2003 13:48:11 -0600 | From | James Bottomley <> |
| |
adam@yggdrasil.com said: > I thought Andrew Morton's request for a gfp flag was for allocating > memory from a pool (for example, a "read ahead" will want to abort if > memory is unavailable rather than wait).
Well, yes, but the underlying allocators will also have to take the flag too so that all the semantics are correct.
adam@yggdrasil.com said: > Can someone show me or invent an example of two different uses of > dma_alloc_coherent that really should use different policies on > whether to block or not?
The obvious one is allocations from interrupt routines, which must be GFP_ATOMIC (ignoring the issue of whether a driver should be doing a memory allocation in an interrupt). Allocating large pools at driver initialisation should probably be GFP_KERNEL as you say.
James
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |