[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <decb3327-f47e-4ef2-8fd1-027acc6038d0@neon.tech>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2025 11:36:29 +0100
From: Em Sharnoff <sharnoff@...n.tech>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Andy Lutomirski
<luto@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
Oleg Vasilev <oleg@...n.tech>, Arthur Petukhovsky <arthur@...n.tech>,
Stefan Radig <stefan@...n.tech>, Misha Sakhnov <misha@...n.tech>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: Handle alloc failure in phys_*_init()
On 2025-06-05 07:36, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> I agree that it makes total sense to fix all this (especially since you
> are actively triggering it), but have you tried also changing it away
> from GFP_ATOMIC? There's no real reason why it should be GFP_ATOMIC
> AFAICS, other than some historic inertia that nobody bothered to fix.
Fair enough, yeah. We hadn't tried that, no
> Finally, could you make this a 2-patch fix series: first one to fix the
> error return path to not crash, and the second one to change it away
> from GFP_ATOMIC?
Sounds good -- thanks for the feedback!
Sent a new patch set with those changes. For posterity, v2 is here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/0ce5e150-19e0-457f-bec3-ee031c0be7e7@neon.tech/
Thanks,
Em
Powered by blists - more mailing lists