[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEXW_YRoTvQfqqcM9fi+MkMxCPEaoJh4zHRM3qNYkv=-nAVuBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 19:13:33 -0400
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <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>,
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 2:56 PM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
<bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> On 2020-07-15 20:35:37 [+0200], Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> > @@ -3306,6 +3307,9 @@ kvfree_call_rcu_add_ptr_to_bulk(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp, void *ptr)
> > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT))
> > return false;
> >
> > + preempt_disable();
> > + krc_this_cpu_unlock(*krcp, *flags);
>
> Now you enter memory allocator with disabled preemption. This isn't any
> better but we don't have a warning for this yet.
> What happened to the part where I asked for a spinlock_t?
Ulad,
Wouldn't the replacing of preempt_disable() with migrate_disable()
above resolve Sebastian's issue?
Or which scenario breaks?
thanks,
- Joel
>
> > +
> > /*
> > * NOTE: For one argument of kvfree_rcu() we can
> > * drop the lock and get the page in sleepable
>
> Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists