[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <A5ED84D3BB3A384992CBB9C77DEDA4D413809ABE@USINDEM103.corp.hds.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 19:19:04 +0000
From: Seiji Aguchi <seiji.aguchi@....com>
To: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Luck, Tony (tony.luck@...el.com)" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"Matthew Garrett (mjg@...hat.com)" <mjg@...hat.com>,
"dzickus@...hat.com" <dzickus@...hat.com>,
"mikew@...gle.com" <mikew@...gle.com>
CC: "dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Satoru Moriya <satoru.moriya@....com>
Subject: efi_pstore: question about how to remove spinlock from a whole
process of open/read/close of efi_pstore
Hi,
I'm sending an email to discuss how to remove spinlock from a whole process of open/read/close of efi_pstore.
[Problem]
Current efi_pstore calls kmalloc() in a read callback while holding a spinlock, efivar->lock, in an open callback.
This means efi_pstore may deadlock if it sleeps in kmalloc().
Also, there is a comment that an efivar->lock shouldn't be held when calling kmalloc().
[Idea]
In a process of open/read/close, pstore creates some files in the directory of /dev/pstore.
So, memory allocations like kmalloc() are not avoidable.
My idea fixing this issue is removing spinlock from a whole process of open/read/close of efi_pstore.
Currently, efivar->lock protects two things, efivar->list and ops.[gs]et_variable().
But if we can revise locks of efivar as follows, we can fix this issue.
- Introduce a new efivar->list_lock to protect efivar->list and RCU is used while searching it.
- An existing efivar>lock protects just ops.[gs]et_variable() calls.
Any comments are welcome.
Seiji
--
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