[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090414105823.GL3558@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:58:23 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, joerg.roedel@....com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dma-debug: add dma_debug_resize_entries() to
adjust the number of dma_debug_entries
* FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> +int dma_debug_resize_entries(u32 num_entries)
> +{
> + int i, delta, ret = 0;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + struct dma_debug_entry *entry;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&free_entries_lock, flags);
> +
> + if (nr_total_entries < num_entries) {
> + delta = num_entries - nr_total_entries;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < delta; i++) {
> + entry = kzalloc(sizeof(*entry), GFP_ATOMIC);
> + if (!entry)
> + break;
hm, using GFP_ATOMIC within a spinlock is not a very nice thing to
do in general. While this is boot-only and the GFP_ATOMIC will
likely succeed, this could become non-boot functionality and then
it's exposed to the momentary VM pressure situation that might make
GFP_ATOMIC fail.
Please fix this to be GFP_KERNEL.
a small detail:
> + delta = nr_total_entries - num_entries;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < delta && !list_empty(&free_entries); i++) {
> + entry = __dma_entry_alloc();
> + kfree(entry);
> + }
> +
> + nr_total_entries -= i;
> + }
Can i != delta ever happen? It would suggest the list length being
out of sync with the nr_total_entries counter.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists