On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 07:50:31 -0700
Stephane Eranian <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > +
> > > + cachep = ctx->flags.mapset ? pfm_set_cachep : pfm_lg_set_cachep;
> > > +
> > > + new_set = kmem_cache_alloc(cachep, SLAB_ATOMIC);
> >
> > SLAB_ATOMIC is unreliable. Is it possible to use SLAB_KERNEL here? If
> > coms ecallers can sleep and others cannot then passing in the gfp_flags
> > would permit improvement here.
> >
>
> I made some changes and now I know I execute this part of the function
> with interrupts disabled, holding only the perfmon context lock. I assume
> SLAB_KERNEL means, we can sleep. I think I can make this change safely.
>
>
> >
> > > + if (ctx->flags.mapset) {
> > > + view_size = PAGE_ALIGN(sizeof(struct pfm_set_view));
> > > + view = vmalloc(view_size);
> >
> > vmalloc() sleeps, so this _could_ have used SLAB_ATOMIC.
> >
>
> I am not sure I follow you here. Are you talking about eh kmem_cache_alloc()
> above?
>
My logic was as follows:
a) vmalloc() can sleep
b) Stephane at some time tested this conde with
CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK_SLEEP and didn't get sleep-while-atomic warnings out of
that vmalloc().
c) Hence this code is never called under spinlock, or with local
interrupts disabled.
d) Hence it is safe to convert the earlier SLAB_ATOMIC into SLAB_KERNEL.
If b) is false then it's the vmalloc() call which is incorrect, not the
SLAB_ATOMIC.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
