[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200813143221.GI17456@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 15:32:21 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>, paulmck@...nel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...ymobile.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC-PATCH 1/2] mm: Add __GFP_NO_LOCKS flag
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 03:27:15PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> And guarding it with RT is not working either because then you are back
> to square one with the problem which triggered the discussion in the
> first place:
>
> raw_spin_lock()
> alloc()
> if (RT && !preemptible()) <- False because RT == false
> goto bail;
>
> spin_lock(&zone->lock) --> LOCKDEP complains
>
> So either you convince Paul not to do that or you need to do something
> like I suggested in my other reply.
I'd like to throw in the possibility that we do something like:
raw_spin_lock()
alloc()
if (!spin_trylock(&zone->lock))
if (RT && !preemptible())
goto bail;
spin_lock(&zone->lock);
would that make us feel more comfortable about converting zone->lock to
a raw spinlock?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists