[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <4ACC749602000078000186ED@vpn.id2.novell.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:59:34 +0100
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...ell.com>
To: "Hugh Dickins" <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>
Cc: <linux-mm@...ck.org>, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] adjust gfp mask passed on nested vmalloc()
invocation
>>> Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk> 06.10.09 23:58 >>>
>On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
>> - fix a latent bug resulting from blindly or-ing in __GFP_ZERO, since
>> the combination of this and __GFP_HIGHMEM (possibly passed into the
>> function) is forbidden in interrupt context
>> - avoid wasting more precious resources (DMA or DMA32 pools), when
>> being called through vmalloc_32{,_user}()
>> - explicitly allow using high memory here even if the outer allocation
>> request doesn't allow it, unless is collides with __GFP_ZERO
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>
>
>I thought vmalloc.c was a BUG_ON(in_interrupt()) zone?
>The locking is all spin_lock stuff, not spin_lock_irq stuff.
>That's probably why your "bug" has remained "latent".
Actually, my previous reply to this was bogus, and I agree with your
statement. Hence, from a second version of the patch (depending on
your response on my question regarding the other part of your reply),
I should drop that part of the description.
Jan
--
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