[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190521144713.GX32329@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 16:47:13 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Wei Wang <wvw@...gle.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()
On Tue 21-05-19 14:43:38, Cristopher Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2019, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> > In some special cases we must not block, but there's not a
> > spinlock, preempt-off, irqs-off or similar critical section already
> > that arms the might_sleep() debug checks. Add a non_block_start/end()
> > pair to annotate these.
>
> Just putting preempt on/off around these is not sufficient?
It is not a critical section. It is a _debugging_ facility to help
discover blocking contexts.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists