Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1662703 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH] goldfish_pipe: use GFP_ATOMIC under spin lock Jin Qian <jinqian@android.com> - 2017-06-09 21:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] goldfish_pipe: use GFP_ATOMIC under spin lock Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2017-06-13 08:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] goldfish_pipe: use GFP_ATOMIC under spin lock Jin Qian <jinqian@android.com> - 2017-06-13 20:50 +0200

#1662703 — Re: [PATCH] goldfish_pipe: use GFP_ATOMIC under spin lock

Reviewed-by: Jin Qian <jinqian@google.com>

Can we merge this to stable?

Thanks!
jin

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> 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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1664468

On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 12:15:42PM -0700, Jin Qian wrote:
> Reviewed-by: Jin Qian <jinqian@google.com>
> 
> Can we merge this to stable?

I don't understand the question, what kernel(s) exactly do you want this
commit to be added to?

thanks,

greg k-h

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1665103

I meant that the patch needs Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org.

Thanks,
jin




On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 12:15:42PM -0700, Jin Qian wrote:
>> Reviewed-by: Jin Qian <jinqian@google.com>
>>
>> Can we merge this to stable?
>
> I don't understand the question, what kernel(s) exactly do you want this
> commit to be added to?
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web