lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jan]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] block: blk-mq-sched: Replace GFP_ATOMIC with GFP_KERNEL in blk_mq_sched_assign_ioc
From
Date


On 2018/1/25 10:58, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 10:46:26AM +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
>> The function ioc_create_icq here is not called in atomic context.
>> Thus GFP_ATOMIC is not necessary, and it can be replaced with GFP_KERNEL.
>>
>> This is found by a static analysis tool named DCNS written by myself.
> Umm... Some human-readable analysis would be welcome. FWIW, I've tried to
> put a proof together, but...
> struct blk_mq_ops->timeout = nvme_timeout
> nvme_timeout()
> nvme_alloc_request()
> blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx()
> blk_mq_get_request()
> blk_mq_sched_assign_ioc()
> ... and while I have not traced the call chain further, the look of that
> function (nvme_timeout()) strongly suggests that it *is* meant to be
> called from bloody atomic context.
>
> "My tool has found that place/put together a proof" is nice, but it
> doesn't replace the proof itself...

Thanks for reply :)

I have checked the given call chain, and find that nvme_dev_disable in
nvme_timeout calls mutex_lock that can sleep.
Thus, I suppose this call chain is not in atomic context.

Besides, how do you find that "function (nvme_timeout()) strongly
suggests that it *is* meant to be called from bloody atomic context"?
I check the comments in nvme_timeout, and do not find related description...

By the way, do you mean that I should add "My tool has proved that this
function is never called in atomic context" in the description?


Thanks,
Jia-Ju Bai

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-01-25 04:14    [W:0.562 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site