Re: [PATCH] mm: clarify usage of GFP_ATOMIC in !preemptible contexts

2020-09-29 Thread Uladzislau Rezki
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 02:30:10PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > From: Michal Hocko > > There is a general understanding that GFP_ATOMIC/GFP_NOWAIT are > to be used from atomic contexts. E.g. from within a spin lock or from > the IRQ context. This is correct but there are some atomic contexts >

Re: [PATCH] mm: clarify usage of GFP_ATOMIC in !preemptible contexts

2020-09-29 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Tue, Sep 29 2020 at 14:30, Michal Hocko wrote: > diff --git a/include/linux/gfp.h b/include/linux/gfp.h > index 67a0774e080b..2e8370cf60c7 100644 > --- a/include/linux/gfp.h > +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h > @@ -238,7 +238,9 @@ struct vm_area_struct; > * %__GFP_FOO flags as necessary. > * > *

Re: [PATCH] mm: clarify usage of GFP_ATOMIC in !preemptible contexts

2020-09-29 Thread David Hildenbrand
On 29.09.20 14:30, Michal Hocko wrote: > From: Michal Hocko > > There is a general understanding that GFP_ATOMIC/GFP_NOWAIT are > to be used from atomic contexts. E.g. from within a spin lock or from > the IRQ context. This is correct but there are some atomic contexts > where the above doesn't

[PATCH] mm: clarify usage of GFP_ATOMIC in !preemptible contexts

2020-09-29 Thread Michal Hocko
From: Michal Hocko There is a general understanding that GFP_ATOMIC/GFP_NOWAIT are to be used from atomic contexts. E.g. from within a spin lock or from the IRQ context. This is correct but there are some atomic contexts where the above doesn't hold. One of them would be an NMI context. Page