On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 07:43:54PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 04:06:49PM -0700, Keshavamurthy, Anil S wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 06:57:14PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > you should add logic to free resources here (or queue_work to free the > > > resources), if the pool grows beyond a certain size. > > > Can be added as an add on, testing showed that pool > > grows to a certain size and will not grow beyond that > > as we tend to reuse the elements. > > Yes, but is it possible? If no, what part of the code guarantees the > pool is limited? > > We should not merge code that allows the pool to grow without bound. > In-house testing certainly never covers all the cases seen in the > field, so I wouldn't make too many assumptions based on that. Some > vendor will inevitably build a $BigNum system where the IOMMU is very > heavily used.
No problem, I can add the code to free the pool element if the curr_count ever goes greater than (min_count + 2 * grow_count) then bring the curr_count to min_count + grow_count by freeing some pool objects. A patch which will apply to this current patch will follow soon. Thanks Jeff for making your case stronger :) -Anil > > Jeff > - 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/