[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200715193250.axntj7jdt6bw52dr@linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 21:32:50 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...ymobile.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] rcu/tree: Drop the lock before entering to page
allocator
On 2020-07-15 21:02:43 [+0200], Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
>
> <snip>
> spin_lock();
> __get_free_page(GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN);
> spin_unlock();
> <snip>
>
> Also, please note we do it for regular kernel.
ach right okay then.
> >
> > What happened to the part where I asked for a spinlock_t?
> >
> What do you mean?
Please drop that raw_spinlock_t for the kfree_rcu() based locking and
use just a plain spinlock_t for the locking. Then you can keep the same
code flow for RT and !RT without any special cases and everything.
> --
> Vlad Rezki
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists