On 2014/11/29 22:56, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 10:29:33PM +0800, Jiang Liu wrote: >> Thanks for reporting and fixing this. How about using GFP_ATOMIC >> here? > > Well, I don't see the need to use GFP_ATOMIC if we absolutely don't have > to. And in this case lockdep is, AFAICT, correct in saying that we still > can do allocations with interrupts disabled, only not go down into fs > and do all kinds of lock grabbing operations like page reclaim, writeout > or whatever it is being done nowadays there. > > Yeah, this is also some old "no-no" in my memory which says that we > should almost never use GFP_ATOMIC if it can be helped. Thanks for the info about GFP_ATOMIC, originally I have an impression that we should use GFP_ATOMIC when interrupt is disabled:( > > OTOH, I wonder if this code would rather need to hand down explicit gfp > flags in case it should be able to do GFP_ATOMIC operations at some > point... > > Thanks. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|