[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5479E467.5070701@linux.intel.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 23:21:11 +0800
From: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org, matthias.bgg@...il.com,
tony.luck@...el.com, tglx@...utronix.de, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com,
grant.likely@...aro.org, wangyijing@...wei.com,
marc.zyngier@....com, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
yingjoe.chen@...iatek.com, mingo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:irq/irqdomain] irqdomain: Introduce helper function irq_domain_add_hierarchy()
On 2014/11/29 22:56, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 10:29:33PM +0800, Jiang Liu wrote:
>> Thanks for reporting and fixing this. How about using GFP_ATOMIC
>> here?
>
> Well, I don't see the need to use GFP_ATOMIC if we absolutely don't have
> to. And in this case lockdep is, AFAICT, correct in saying that we still
> can do allocations with interrupts disabled, only not go down into fs
> and do all kinds of lock grabbing operations like page reclaim, writeout
> or whatever it is being done nowadays there.
>
> Yeah, this is also some old "no-no" in my memory which says that we
> should almost never use GFP_ATOMIC if it can be helped.
Thanks for the info about GFP_ATOMIC, originally I have an impression
that we should use GFP_ATOMIC when interrupt is disabled:(
>
> OTOH, I wonder if this code would rather need to hand down explicit gfp
> flags in case it should be able to do GFP_ATOMIC operations at some
> point...
>
> Thanks.
>
--
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