lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Oct]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH] IB/sa: replace GFP_KERNEL with GFP_ATOMIC
Date


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Gunthorpe [mailto:jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 2:17 PM
> To: Weiny, Ira
> Cc: Saurabh Sengar; dledford@redhat.com; Hefty, Sean;
> hal.rosenstock@gmail.com; yun.wang@profitbricks.com; Wan, Kaike; linux-
> rdma@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/sa: replace GFP_KERNEL with GFP_ATOMIC
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 02:12:36PM -0400, ira.weiny wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:17:40PM +0530, Saurabh Sengar wrote:
> > > replace GFP_KERNEL with GFP_ATOMIC, as code while holding a spinlock
> > > should be atomic GFP_KERNEL may sleep and can cause deadlock, where
> > > as GFP_ATOMIC may fail but certainly avoids deadlock
> >
> > Great catch. Thanks!
> >
> > However, gfp_t is passed to send_mad and we should pass that down and
> use it.
>
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&ib_nl_request_lock, flags);
> > - ret = ib_nl_send_msg(query);
> > + ret = ib_nl_send_msg(query, gfp_mask);
>
> A spin lock is guarenteed held around ib_nl_send_msg, so it's allocations
> have to be atomic, can't use gfp_mask here..
>
> I do wonder if it is a good idea to call ib_nl_send_msg with a spinlock held
> though.. Would be nice to see that go away.

We have to hold the lock to protect against a race condition that a quick response will try to free the request from the ib_nl_request_list before we even put it on the list.

>
> Jason


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-10-27 20:21    [W:0.097 / U:0.868 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site