On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 06:01:45PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> > So because in_atomic doesn't work for !CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels, can we
> > always defer the work in these cases?
> >
> > So for non-preemptible kernels, we always defer:
> >
> > if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT) || in_atomic()) {
> > // defer
> > }
> >
> > Is this fine? Or any other ideas?
> >
>
> What's wrong with my idea?
> We can add vfree_in_atomic() and use it to free vmapped stacks
> and for any other places where vfree() used 'in_atomict() && !in_interrupt()' context.
I somehow missed the mail, sorry. That beeing said always defer is
going to suck badly in terms of performance, so I'm not sure it's an all
that good idea.
vfree_in_atomic sounds good, but I wonder if we'll need to annotate
more callers than just the stacks. I'm fairly bust this week, do you
want to give that a spin? Otherwise I'll give it a try towards the
end of this week or next week.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>