On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 04:25:37PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2020-07-16 11:19:13 [+0200], Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > Sebastian, could you please confirm that if that patch that is in > > question fixes it? > > > > It would be appreciated! > > So that preempt disable should in terms any warnings. However I don't > think that it is strictly needed and from scheduling point of view you > forbid a CPU migration which might be good otherwise. > Please elaborate your point regarding "i do not think it is strictly needed". Actually i can rework the patch to remove even such preempt_enable/disable to stay on the same CPU, but i do not see the point of doing it. Do you see the point? As for scheduling point of view. Well, there are many places when there is a demand in memory or pages from atomic context. Also, getting a page is not considered as a hot path in the kfree_rcu(). > > Also if interrupts and everything is enabled then someone else might > invoke kfree_rcu() from BH context for instance. > And what? What is a problem here, please elaborate if you see any issues. -- Vlad Rezki
