[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AF3E3D1.7010101@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:52:33 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: irq lock inversion
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> My question is, why do we do flags save/restore in pcpu-alloc?
That's strictly for calls from sched_init().
> Do we ever call it with irqs disabled? If yes, then the vfree might
> be unsafe due to vfree() potentially flushing TLBs (on all CPUs) and
> that act of sending IPIs requiring irqs to be enabled.
And when called from sched_init(), it won't call vfree().
> ( Now, Nick has optimized vfree recently to lazy-free areas, but that
> was a statistical optimization: TLB flushes are still possible, just
> done more rarely. So we might end up calling flush_tlb_kernel_range()
> from vfree(). I've Cc:-ed Nick. )
Nevertheless, it would be nice to allow at least the free part to be
called from irqsafe context. vmalloc is doing a lot of things lazily
so deferring TLB flushes to a work wouldn't make much difference, I
suppose?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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