On Wed 17-06-20 05:23:21, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 01:31:57PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 17-06-20 04:08:20, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > 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. > > > > ... Unless I am missing something in_interrupt depends on preempt_count() as > > well so neither of the two is reliable without PREEMPT_COUNT configured. > > preempt_count() always tracks whether we're in interrupt context, > regardless of CONFIG_PREEMPT. The difference is that CONFIG_PREEMPT > will track spinlock acquisitions as well. Right you are! Thanks for the clarification. I find the situation around preempt_count quite confusing TBH. Looking at existing users of in_atomic() (e.g. a random one zd_usb_iowrite16v_async which check in_atomic and then does GFP_KERNEL allocation which would be obviously broken on !PREEMPT if the function can be called from an atomic context), I am wondering whether it would make sense to track atomic context also for !PREEMPT. This check is just terribly error prone. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
