All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] PCI: Use GFP_ATOMIC in resource_alignment_store()
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 21:47:12 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190905214712.GJ103977@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9d2094f7-eb71-4975-eb9b-166a1483afa0@deltatee.com>

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 09:51:05AM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2019-09-02 1:50 a.m., Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 12:49:32PM +0000, YueHaibing wrote:
> >> When allocating memory, the GFP_KERNEL cannot be used during the
> >> spin_lock period. It may cause scheduling when holding spin_lock.
> >>
> >> Fixes: f13755318675 ("PCI: Move pci_[get|set]_resource_alignment_param() into their callers")
> >> Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/pci/pci.c | 2 +-
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> >> index 484e35349565..0b5fc6736f3f 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> >> @@ -6148,7 +6148,7 @@ static ssize_t resource_alignment_store(struct bus_type *bus,
> >>  	spin_lock(&resource_alignment_lock);
> >>  
> >>  	kfree(resource_alignment_param);
> >> -	resource_alignment_param = kstrndup(buf, count, GFP_KERNEL);
> >> +	resource_alignment_param = kstrndup(buf, count, GFP_ATOMIC);
> >>  
> >>  	spin_unlock(&resource_alignment_lock);
> > 
> > Why not move the allocation outside the lock? Something like this
> > seems much more sensible:
> 
> Yes, that seems like a good way to do it. Bjorn, can you squash
> Christoph's patch or do you want me to resend a new one?

I folded Christoph's fix into it, thanks!

> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > index 484e35349565..fe205829f676 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > @@ -6145,14 +6145,16 @@ static ssize_t resource_alignment_show(struct bus_type *bus, char *buf)
> >  static ssize_t resource_alignment_store(struct bus_type *bus,
> >  					const char *buf, size_t count)
> >  {
> > -	spin_lock(&resource_alignment_lock);
> > +	char *param = kstrndup(buf, count, GFP_KERNEL);
> >  
> > -	kfree(resource_alignment_param);
> > -	resource_alignment_param = kstrndup(buf, count, GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	if (!param)
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> >  
> > +	spin_lock(&resource_alignment_lock);
> > +	kfree(resource_alignment_param);
> > +	resource_alignment_param = param;
> >  	spin_unlock(&resource_alignment_lock);
> > -
> > -	return resource_alignment_param ? count : -ENOMEM;
> > +	return count;
> >  }
> >  
> >  static BUS_ATTR_RW(resource_alignment);
> > 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] PCI: Use GFP_ATOMIC in resource_alignment_store()
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 16:47:12 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190905214712.GJ103977@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9d2094f7-eb71-4975-eb9b-166a1483afa0@deltatee.com>

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 09:51:05AM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2019-09-02 1:50 a.m., Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 12:49:32PM +0000, YueHaibing wrote:
> >> When allocating memory, the GFP_KERNEL cannot be used during the
> >> spin_lock period. It may cause scheduling when holding spin_lock.
> >>
> >> Fixes: f13755318675 ("PCI: Move pci_[get|set]_resource_alignment_param() into their callers")
> >> Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/pci/pci.c | 2 +-
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> >> index 484e35349565..0b5fc6736f3f 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> >> @@ -6148,7 +6148,7 @@ static ssize_t resource_alignment_store(struct bus_type *bus,
> >>  	spin_lock(&resource_alignment_lock);
> >>  
> >>  	kfree(resource_alignment_param);
> >> -	resource_alignment_param = kstrndup(buf, count, GFP_KERNEL);
> >> +	resource_alignment_param = kstrndup(buf, count, GFP_ATOMIC);
> >>  
> >>  	spin_unlock(&resource_alignment_lock);
> > 
> > Why not move the allocation outside the lock? Something like this
> > seems much more sensible:
> 
> Yes, that seems like a good way to do it. Bjorn, can you squash
> Christoph's patch or do you want me to resend a new one?

I folded Christoph's fix into it, thanks!

> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > index 484e35349565..fe205829f676 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > @@ -6145,14 +6145,16 @@ static ssize_t resource_alignment_show(struct bus_type *bus, char *buf)
> >  static ssize_t resource_alignment_store(struct bus_type *bus,
> >  					const char *buf, size_t count)
> >  {
> > -	spin_lock(&resource_alignment_lock);
> > +	char *param = kstrndup(buf, count, GFP_KERNEL);
> >  
> > -	kfree(resource_alignment_param);
> > -	resource_alignment_param = kstrndup(buf, count, GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	if (!param)
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> >  
> > +	spin_lock(&resource_alignment_lock);
> > +	kfree(resource_alignment_param);
> > +	resource_alignment_param = param;
> >  	spin_unlock(&resource_alignment_lock);
> > -
> > -	return resource_alignment_param ? count : -ENOMEM;
> > +	return count;
> >  }
> >  
> >  static BUS_ATTR_RW(resource_alignment);
> > 

  reply	other threads:[~2019-09-05 21:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-08-31 12:49 [PATCH -next] PCI: Use GFP_ATOMIC in resource_alignment_store() YueHaibing
2019-08-31 12:49 ` YueHaibing
2019-09-02  7:50 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-09-02  7:50   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-09-03 15:51   ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-09-03 15:51     ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-09-05 21:47     ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
2019-09-05 21:47       ` Bjorn Helgaas
2019-09-03  8:22 ` [PATCH v2 -next] PCI: Don't use GFP_KERNEL for kstrbdup in resource_alignment_store YueHaibing

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20190905214712.GJ103977@google.com \
    --to=helgaas@kernel.org \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=logang@deltatee.com \
    --cc=yuehaibing@huawei.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.