Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 10 May 2001 23:32:25 +0200 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: Deadlock in 2.2 sock_alloc_send_skb? |
| |
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 11:17:17PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 11:13:00PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 07:30:47PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 01:57:49PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > > If that happens, and the socket uses GFP_ATOMIC allocation, the while (1) > > > > > loop in sock_alloc_send_skb() will endlessly spin, without ever calling > > > > > schedule(), and all the time holding the kernel lock ... > > > > > > > > If the socket is using GFP_ATOMIC allocation it should never loop. That is > > > > -not-allowed-. > > > > > > It is just not clear why any socket should use GFP_ATOMIC. I can understand > > > it using GFP_BUFFER e.g. for nbd, but GFP_ATOMIC seems to be rather radical > > > and fragile. > > > > side note, the only legal use of GFP_ATOMIC in sock_alloc_send_skb is > > with noblock set and fallback zero, remeber GFP_BUFFER will sleep, it > > may not sleep in vanilla 2.2.19 but the necessary lowlatency hooks in > > the memory balancing that for example I have on my 2.2 tree will make it > > to sleep. > > Even with nonblock set the socket code will sleep in some circumstances > (e.g. when aquiring the socket lock) so interrupt operation is out anyways. > > > > The patch self contained looks perfect (I didn't checked that the > > callers are happy with a -ENOMEM errorcode though), if alloc_skb() > > failed that's a plain -ENOMEM. The caller must _not_ try again, they > > must take a recovery fail path instead. > > I think the callers are likely broken. > The patch is still good of course, but not for GFP_ATOMIC.
you said interrupt won't call that function so I don't see the GFP_ATOMIC issue.
I also don't what's the issue with GFP_ATOMIC regardless somebody uses it or not, the patch itself has nothing to do with GFP_ATOMIC. All gfpmasks can fail, allock_skb can fail regardless of the gfpmask, not only GFP_ATOMIC will fail, of course GFP_ATOMIC can fail even if the machine is not totally out of memory but you never know and you cannot assume anything and when alloc_skb fails you must assume the machine is totally out of memory or you will deadlock, so if alloc_skb fails we must return -ENOMEM and take the fail path and the patch does the right thing in such case as well.
Andrea - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |