Re: [PATCH] mempool: clarify behavior of mempool_alloc_preallocated()

["Vishal Moola (Oracle)" <vishal.moola@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 02:17:23PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> The documentation of that function promises to never sleep.
> However on PREEMPT_RT a spinlock_t might in fact sleep.
> 
> Reword the documentation so users can predict its behavior better.
> 
> mempool could also replace spinlock_t with raw_spinlock_t which doesn't
> sleep even on PREEMPT_RT but that would take away the improved
> preemptibility of sleeping locks.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@linutronix.de>
> ---
>  mm/mempool.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/mempool.c b/mm/mempool.c
> index 1c38e873e546fadcc594f041874eb42774e3df16..cceb09b75ebe35f263a5fb95ff6d400221ecbdd5 100644
> --- a/mm/mempool.c
> +++ b/mm/mempool.c
> @@ -461,8 +461,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(mempool_alloc_noprof);
>   *             mempool_create().
>   *
>   * This function is similar to mempool_alloc, but it only attempts allocating
> - * an element from the preallocated elements. It does not sleep and immediately
> - * returns if no preallocated elements are available.
> + * an element from the preallocated elements. It only takes a single spinlock_t

Might it make more sense to say "It may sleep" instead of "takes a
single spinlock_t"?

I feel like the fact that we take a spinlock isn't the important part
here (especially because we always drop it before returning).

> + * and immediately returns if no preallocated elements are available.
>   *
>   * Return: pointer to the allocated element or %NULL if no elements are
>   * available.
> 
> ---
> base-commit: 3a8660878839faadb4f1a6dd72c3179c1df56787
> change-id: 20251014-mempool-doc-625dd4996110
> 
> Best regards,
> -- 
> Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@linutronix.de>
>