On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 11:36:05AM -0800, David Brownell wrote: > > Those allocations could be from _using_ a dma pool ... but they're > not from just creating one! > > The cost of creating the dma_pool is the cost of one small kmalloc() > plus (the expensive part) the /sys/devices/.../pools sysfs attribute > is created along with the first pool. (Use that instead of slabinfo > for those pool allocations.) That's why the normal spot to create and > destroy dma pools is in driver probe() and remove() methods.
OK, then I misread drivers/base/pool.c and my objection to the patch is unfounded. > If you want to allocate gobs of other stuff at the same time, that's > your choice ... but it'd be a separate issue. Cost to create a > dma_pool is significantly less than PAGE_SIZE, and there's no good > reason to allocate or destroy those pools anywhere near an IRQ context. I agree. raw1394 does far too much with irqs disabled, and moving this stuff to probe() will fix part of that problem. Jody > > - Dave > - > 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/ -- - 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/
