On 11/05/2016 06:43 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Andrey Ryabinin
> <aryabinin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/22/2016 06:17 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> We want to be able to use a sleeping lock for freeing vmap to keep
>>> latency down. For this we need to use the deferred vfree mechanisms
>>> no only from interrupt, but from any atomic context.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> mm/vmalloc.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
>>> index a4e2cec..bcc1a64 100644
>>> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
>>> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
>>> @@ -1509,7 +1509,7 @@ void vfree(const void *addr)
>>>
>>> if (!addr)
>>> return;
>>> - if (unlikely(in_interrupt())) {
>>> + if (unlikely(in_atomic())) {
>>
>> in_atomic() cannot always detect atomic context, thus it shouldn't be used here.
>> You can add something like vfree_in_atomic() and use it in atomic call sites.
>>
>
> 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.
--
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>