Re: [PATCH] goldfish_pipe: use GFP_ATOMIC under spin lock

From	Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH] goldfish_pipe: use GFP_ATOMIC under spin lock
Date	2017-05-22 20:50 +0200
Message-ID	<tK0z0-NW-29@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<tJneh-kw-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <tJtMJ-4Tk-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <tJUad-5dJ-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	Intel Corporation

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon, 22 May 2017 13:51:52 +0200
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Sun 21-05-17 09:48:36, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Sun 21-05-17 00:45:46, Wei Yongjun wrote:  
> > > From: Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@huawei.com>
> > > 
> > > The function get_free_pipe_id_locked() is called from
> > > goldfish_pipe_open() with a lock is held, so we should
> > > use GFP_ATOMIC instead of GFP_KERNEL.  
> > 
> > Why is GFP_NOWAIT insufficient? Does this path needs an access to memory
> > reserves?  
> 
> And now when looking at the code more deeply, wouldn't it be much better
> to simply do the allocation outside of the spin lock and do assignments
> with the lock held?

That's far from trivial and certainly for backporting and an immediate
fix this seems better. The allocations are not that large and any fail
would be in open() not anywhere weird.

Alan

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[PATCH] goldfish_pipe: use GFP_ATOMIC under spin lock Wei Yongjun <weiyj.lk@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 02:50 +0200
  Re: [PATCH] goldfish_pipe: use GFP_ATOMIC under spin lock Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-05-21 09:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] goldfish_pipe: use GFP_ATOMIC under spin lock Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-05-22 14:00 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] goldfish_pipe: use GFP_ATOMIC under spin lock Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> - 2017-05-22 20:50 +0200

csiph-web