[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151027182041.GA32118@phlsvsds.ph.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:20:42 -0400
From: "ira.weiny" <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
Cc: Saurabh Sengar <saurabh.truth@...il.com>, dledford@...hat.com,
sean.hefty@...el.com, hal.rosenstock@...il.com,
yun.wang@...fitbricks.com, kaike.wan@...el.com,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/sa: replace GFP_KERNEL with GFP_ATOMIC
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:16:52PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 02:12:36PM -0400, ira.weiny wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:17:40PM +0530, Saurabh Sengar wrote:
> > > replace GFP_KERNEL with GFP_ATOMIC, as code while holding a spinlock
> > > should be atomic
> > > GFP_KERNEL may sleep and can cause deadlock, where as GFP_ATOMIC may
> > > fail but certainly avoids deadlock
> >
> > Great catch. Thanks!
> >
> > However, gfp_t is passed to send_mad and we should pass that down and use it.
>
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&ib_nl_request_lock, flags);
> > - ret = ib_nl_send_msg(query);
> > + ret = ib_nl_send_msg(query, gfp_mask);
>
> A spin lock is guarenteed held around ib_nl_send_msg, so it's
> allocations have to be atomic, can't use gfp_mask here..
>
> I do wonder if it is a good idea to call ib_nl_send_msg with a spinlock
> held though.. Would be nice to see that go away.
Ah, yea my bad.
Ira
>
> Jason
--
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