[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200814152623.GN4295@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 08:26:23 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: peterz@...radead.org
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
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>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
"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 Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 12:23:06PM +0200, peterz@...radead.org wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 10:30:37AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > 1. Prohibit invoking allocators from raw atomic context, such
> > > > as when holding a raw spinlock.
> > >
> > > Clearly the simplest solution but not Pauls favourite and
> > > unfortunately he has a good reason.
> >
> > Which isn't actually stated anywhere I suppose ?
>
> Introduce raw_kfree_rcu() that doesn't do the allocation, and fix the
> few wonky callsites.
The problem with that is common code along with the tendency of people
to just use the one that "works everywhere".
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists