[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190418152431.c583ef892a8028c662db3e6a@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 15:24:31 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <guroan@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] mm: refactor __vunmap() to avoid duplicated call
to find_vm_area()
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 04:18:34 -0700 Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 02:58:27PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 12:40:01 -0700 Roman Gushchin <guroan@...il.com> wrote:
> > > +static struct vm_struct *__remove_vm_area(struct vmap_area *va)
> > > +{
> > > + struct vm_struct *vm = va->vm;
> > > +
> > > + might_sleep();
> >
> > Where might __remove_vm_area() sleep?
> >
> > >From a quick scan I'm only seeing vfree(), and that has the
> > might_sleep_if(!in_interrupt()).
> >
> > So perhaps we can remove this...
>
> See commit 5803ed292e63 ("mm: mark all calls into the vmalloc subsystem as potentially sleeping")
>
> It looks like the intent is to unconditionally check might_sleep() at
> the entry points to the vmalloc code, rather than only catch them in
> the occasional place where it happens to go wrong.
afaict, vfree() will only do a mutex_trylock() in
try_purge_vmap_area_lazy(). So does vfree actually sleep in any
situation? Whether or not local interrupts are enabled?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists