On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 09:12:12AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 16-06-20 17:37:11, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > Not just performance critical, but correctness critical. Since kvfree() > > may allocate from the vmalloc allocator, I really think that kvfree() > > should assert that it's !in_atomic(). Otherwise we can get into trouble > > if we end up calling vfree() and have to take the mutex. > > FWIW __vfree already checks for atomic context and put the work into a > deferred context. So this should be safe. It should be used as a last > resort, though. Actually, it only checks for in_interrupt(). If you call vfree() under a spinlock, you're in trouble. in_atomic() only knows if we hold a spinlock for CONFIG_PREEMPT, so it's not safe to check for in_atomic() in __vfree(). So we need the warning in order that preempt people can tell those without that there is a bug here. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
