[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <bb3054c8-3bf3-ba54-793c-a6939bc0acb4@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 09:33:45 +0530
From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/hugetlb: make hugetlb_lock irq safe
On 09/06/2018 05:21 AM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>
> BTW, free_huge_page called by put_page for hugetlbfs pages may also take
> a subpool specific lock via spin_lock(). See hugepage_subpool_put_pages.
> So, this would also need to take irq context into account.
>
I missed that. I can take care of that in next patch update based on
what we decide w.r.t this patch.
-aneesh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists