On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky
<sergey.senozhatsky.work@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> just a note,
>
> On (01/24/17 15:02), Dan Streetman wrote:
> [..]
>> @@ -692,6 +702,15 @@ static int __zswap_param_set(const char *val, const struct kernel_param *kp,
>> */
>> list_add_tail_rcu(&pool->list, &zswap_pools);
>> put_pool = pool;
>> + } else if (!zswap_has_pool) {
>> + /* if initial pool creation failed, and this pool creation also
>> + * failed, maybe both compressor and zpool params were bad.
>> + * Allow changing this param, so pool creation will succeed
>> + * when the other param is changed. We already verified this
>> + * param is ok in the zpool_has_pool() or crypto_has_comp()
>> + * checks above.
>> + */
>> + ret = param_set_charp(s, kp);
>> }
>>
>> spin_unlock(&zswap_pools_lock);
>
> looks like there still GFP_KERNEL allocation from atomic section:
> param_set_charp()->kmalloc_parameter()->kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL), under
> `zswap_pools_lock'.
thanks, it looks like the other param_set_charp above this new one has
been in the spinlock ever since i added the param callback. I'll send
a patch.
>
> -ss
>
--
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>
