lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Dec]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] ipc/sem: do not sleep with a spin lock held
From
Hi Vasily,

On 12/22/21 16:50, Vasily Averin wrote:
> On 22.12.2021 18:31, Vasily Averin wrote:
>> On 22.12.2021 14:45, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>>> Hi Minghao,
>>>
>>> On 12/22/21 09:10, cgel.zte@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> From: Minghao Chi <chi.minghao@zte.com.cn>
>>>>
>>>> We can't call kvfree() with a spin lock held, so defer it.
>> I'm sorry, but I do not understand why exactly we cannot use kvfree?
>> Could you explain it in more details?
> Got it,
> there is cond_resched() called in __vfree() -> __vunmap()
>
> However I'm still not sure that in_interrupt() is used correctly here.

I see three different topics:

- is the current code violating the API? I think yes, thus there is a
bug that needs to be fixed.

- Where is __vunmap() sleeping? Would it be possible to make __vunmap()
safe to be called when owning a spinlock?

- should kvfree() use vfree() [i.e. unsafe when owning a spinlock] or
vfree_atomic [i.e. a bit slower, but safe]


As we did quite many s/kfree/kvfree/ changes, perhaps just switching to
vfree_atomic() is the best solution.

@Andrew: What would you prefer?

In addition, if we do not use vfree_atomic(): Then I would propose to
copy the might_sleep_if() from vfree() into kvfree()

--

    Manfred

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-12-22 18:06    [W:0.081 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site