[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200715193657.GB26938@pc636>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 21:36:57 +0200
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
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 Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:32:50PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> 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.
>
Ahhh... That i see :)
I guess it is up to Paul. I wrote my thoughts. I have only one concern
that i explained in my previous mails.
Thank you, Sebastian, for your comments!
--
Vlad Rezki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists