On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 02:27:07PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 04:37:14PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 09:36:47AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 11:19:13AM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 202
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 04:37:14PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 09:36:47AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 11:19:13AM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 07:13:33PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 202
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 05:36:38PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2020-07-16 08:20:27 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > You lost me on this one. I am instead concerned that something like this
> > might be needed on short notice:
> >
> > raw_spin_lock(&some_lock);
> > kfr
On 2020-07-16 08:20:27 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> You lost me on this one. I am instead concerned that something like this
> might be needed on short notice:
>
> raw_spin_lock(&some_lock);
> kfree_rcu(some_pointer, some_field_offset);
>
> In contrast, single-argument kfree_rc
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 05:04:14PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2020-07-16 16:47:28 [+0200], Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 04:25:37PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > On 2020-07-16 11:19:13 [+0200], Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > > Sebastian, could
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 04:14:21PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2020-07-15 15:14:49 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > My concern is that some critical bug will show up at some point
> > that requires double-argument kfree_rcu() be invoked while holding
> > a raw spinlock. (
On 2020-07-16 16:47:28 [+0200], Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 04:25:37PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2020-07-16 11:19:13 [+0200], Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > Sebastian, could you please confirm that if that patch that is in
> > > question fixes it?
> > >
>
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 04:25:37PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2020-07-16 11:19:13 [+0200], Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > Sebastian, could you please confirm that if that patch that is in
> > question fixes it?
> >
> > It would be appreciated!
>
> So that preempt disable should in
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 09:36:47AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 11:19:13AM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 07:13:33PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 2:56 PM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 20
On 2020-07-16 11:19:13 [+0200], Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> Sebastian, could you please confirm that if that patch that is in
> question fixes it?
>
> It would be appreciated!
So that preempt disable should in terms any warnings. However I don't
think that it is strictly needed and from scheduling
On 2020-07-15 15:14:49 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> My concern is that some critical bug will show up at some point
> that requires double-argument kfree_rcu() be invoked while holding
> a raw spinlock. (Single-argument kfree_rcu() must sometimes invoke
> synchronize_rcu(), so it can neve
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 11:19:13AM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 07:13:33PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 2:56 PM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2020-07-15 20:35:37 [+0200], Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> > > > @@ -3306,6
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 07:13:33PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 2:56 PM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2020-07-15 20:35:37 [+0200], Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> > > @@ -3306,6 +3307,9 @@ kvfree_call_rcu_add_ptr_to_bulk(struct
> > > kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp,
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 2:56 PM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
wrote:
>
> On 2020-07-15 20:35:37 [+0200], Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> > @@ -3306,6 +3307,9 @@ kvfree_call_rcu_add_ptr_to_bulk(struct kfree_rcu_cpu
> > *krcp, void *ptr)
> > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT))
> >
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:32:50PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2020-07-15 21:02:43 [+0200], Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> >
> >
> > spin_lock();
> > __get_free_page(GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN);
> > spin_unlock();
> >
> >
> > Also, please note we do it for regular kernel.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:32:50PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2020-07-15 21:02:43 [+0200], Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> >
> >
> > spin_lock();
> > __get_free_page(GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN);
> > spin_unlock();
> >
> >
> > Also, please note we do it for regular kernel.
On 2020-07-15 21:02:43 [+0200], Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
>
>
> spin_lock();
> __get_free_page(GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN);
> spin_unlock();
>
>
> Also, please note we do it for regular kernel.
ach right okay then.
> >
> > What happened to the part where I asked for a spinlock_t?
> >
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 08:56:28PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2020-07-15 20:35:37 [+0200], Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> > @@ -3306,6 +3307,9 @@ kvfree_call_rcu_add_ptr_to_bulk(struct kfree_rcu_cpu
> > *krcp, void *ptr)
> > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)
On 2020-07-15 20:35:37 [+0200], Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> @@ -3306,6 +3307,9 @@ kvfree_call_rcu_add_ptr_to_bulk(struct kfree_rcu_cpu
> *krcp, void *ptr)
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT))
> return false;
>
> + preem
If the kernel is built with CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING
option, the lockedp will complain about violation of the
nesting rules. It does the raw_spinlock vs. spinlock nesting
checks.
Internally the kfree_rcu() uses raw_spinlock_t whereas the
page allocator internally deals with spinlock_t to acce
20 matches
Mail list logo
