RE: [PATCH] IB/sa: replace GFP_KERNEL with GFP_ATOMIC

[Wan, Kaike]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Gunthorpe [mailto:jgunthorpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 2:17 PM
> To: Weiny, Ira
> Cc: Saurabh Sengar; dledford@xxxxxxxxxx; Hefty, Sean;
> hal.rosenstock@xxxxxxxxx; yun.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Wan, Kaike; linux-
> rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/sa: replace GFP_KERNEL with GFP_ATOMIC
> 
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 02:12:36PM -0400, ira.weiny wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:17:40PM +0530, Saurabh Sengar wrote:
> > > replace GFP_KERNEL with GFP_ATOMIC, as code while holding a spinlock
> > > should be atomic GFP_KERNEL may sleep and can cause deadlock, where
> > > as GFP_ATOMIC may fail but certainly avoids deadlock
> >
> > Great catch.  Thanks!
> >
> > However, gfp_t is passed to send_mad and we should pass that down and
> use it.
> 
> >         spin_lock_irqsave(&ib_nl_request_lock, flags);
> > -       ret = ib_nl_send_msg(query);
> > +       ret = ib_nl_send_msg(query, gfp_mask);
> 
> A spin lock is guarenteed held around ib_nl_send_msg, so it's allocations
> have to be atomic, can't use gfp_mask here..
> 
> I do wonder if it is a good idea to call ib_nl_send_msg with a spinlock held
> though.. Would be nice to see that go away.

We have to hold the lock to protect against a race condition that a quick response will try to free the request from the ib_nl_request_list before we even put it on the list.

> 
> Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/