Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:13:24 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Percpu tag allocator |
| |
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:06:10 -0700 Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> Hello, Andrew, Kent. > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 04:38:54PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > ... > > > +unsigned percpu_tag_alloc(struct percpu_tag_pool *pool, gfp_t gfp) > > > +{ > > > + DEFINE_WAIT(wait); > > > + struct percpu_tag_cpu_freelist *tags; > > > + unsigned long flags; > > > + unsigned tag, this_cpu; > > > + > > > + while (1) { > > > + local_irq_save(flags); > ... > > > + schedule(); > > > + } > > > > Does this loop need a try_to_freeze()? > > I don't think so. Kernel tasks should never enter freezer without it > explicitly knowing it. It should be something evident in the > top-level control flow. Freezer acts as a giant lock and entering > freezer deep underneath where the task could be holding random number > of resources and locks can easily develop into a deadlock.
As I understand it, if a task is stuck in this loop at freeze time, the whole freeze attempt will fail. But it's been a long time since I thought about or worked on this stuff.
Another issue is device takedown ordering - this thread is blocked waiting for tags to be returned by IO completion, so there may be issues where the hardware has been shut down.
I really don't know - I'm flagging it as something which should be thought about, tested, etc.
> If this allocation wait is gonna be visible to userland, what's > necessary probably would be making the sleeping interruptible. The > freezer will then make the alloc fail and control should return to the > signal delivery path where it'll be frozen without holding any > resources.
Maybe. Interruptible sleeps here will be a bit of a nuisance with signals. Poke Rafael ;)
| |