Hi Johannes:
Thanks for the reply. In the end of the mempool_resize(), it will
call the mempool_refill() to do the rest of the work. So this is not one
of the "no-caller" case. If you insist this is a "no-caller" case,
perhaps I should change it to a "static" function without exposing a new
interface?
Personally I think mempool_refill() should be one of the typical
interfaces in an implementation of a mempool. Currently the mempool will
not grow only if pool->min_nr > new_min_nr.
So when user wants to refill the mempool immediately, not resize a
mempool, in the current implementation, it has to do 2x
mempool_resize(). First one is mempool_resize(pool->min_nr - 1), second
one is mempool_resize(new_min_nr). So the refill action would truly
happen. This is ugly and not convenient.
On 12/16/15 05:26, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 11:09:43AM +0000, Wang, Zhi A wrote:
This patch factors out mempool_refill() from mempool_resize(). It's reasonable
that the mempool user wants to refill the pool immdiately when it has chance
e.g. inside a sleepible context, so that next time in the IRQ context the pool
would have much more available elements to allocate.
After the refactor, mempool_refill() can also executes with mempool_resize()
/mempool_alloc/mempool_free() or another mempool_refill().
Signed-off-by: Zhi Wang <zhi.a.wang@xxxxxxxxx>
Who is going to call that function? Adding a new interace usually
comes with a user, or as part of a series that adds users.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>