On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:01:22AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 11-03-21 09:46:30, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 06:13:21PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote: > > > from irq context. Changing the check in the code from !in_task to > > > in_atomic would handle the situations when called with irqs disabled. > > > > It does not. local_irq_disable() does not change preempt_count(). > > You are right. Earlier I was suggesting to check of irq_disabled() as > well http://lkml.kernel.org/r/YD4I+VPr3UNt063H@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > back then it was not really clear to me that in fact we do care about > spin locks more than irq disabled code. I am not even sure whether we > need to care about irq disabled regions without any locks held that > wouldn't be covered by in_atomic. But it would be safer to add > irq_disabled check as well. Safer still is always doing it, replace it with if (true). What's the purpose, doing the minimal 'correct', of the maximal safe solution? The whole changelog reads like a trainwreck, but akpm already commented on that. I picked out a small factual incorrectness, simply because if you can't get that right, the whole argument looses weight. That said, I don't think you actually need it, if as you write the lock should be IRQ-safe, then you're worried about the IRQ recursion deadlock: spin_lock(&A); <IRQ> spin_lock(&A); And that obviously cannot happen when IRQs are disabled, even if you were holding a lock. Anyway, I think I support Andrew here, this needs proper fixing, not bandaids.
