* [PATCH] IB/mlx4: Allocation of CQ resize structure doesn't need to be atomic
@ 2016-07-29 4:58 Roland Dreier
[not found] ` <1469768323-8093-1-git-send-email-roland-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Roland Dreier @ 2016-07-29 4:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yishai Hadas, Doug Ledford; +Cc: linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA
From: Roland Dreier <roland-BHEL68pLQRGGvPXPguhicg@public.gmane.org>
We allocate a small tracking structure as part of mlx4_ib_resize_cq().
However, we don't need to use GFP_ATOMIC -- immediately after the
allocation, we call mlx4_cq_resize(), which allocates a command
mailbox with GFP_KERNEL and then sleeps on a firmware command, so we
better not be in an atomic context.
This actually has a real impact, because when this GFP_ATOMIC
allocation fails (and GFP_ATOMIC does fail in practice) then a
userspace consumer resizing a CQ will get a spurious failure that we
can easily avoid.
Signed-off-by: Roland Dreier <roland-BHEL68pLQRGGvPXPguhicg@public.gmane.org>
---
drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx4/cq.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx4/cq.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx4/cq.c
index 9f8b516eb2b0..d6fc8a6e8c33 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx4/cq.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx4/cq.c
@@ -288,7 +288,7 @@ static int mlx4_alloc_resize_buf(struct mlx4_ib_dev *dev, struct mlx4_ib_cq *cq,
if (cq->resize_buf)
return -EBUSY;
- cq->resize_buf = kmalloc(sizeof *cq->resize_buf, GFP_ATOMIC);
+ cq->resize_buf = kmalloc(sizeof *cq->resize_buf, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!cq->resize_buf)
return -ENOMEM;
@@ -316,7 +316,7 @@ static int mlx4_alloc_resize_umem(struct mlx4_ib_dev *dev, struct mlx4_ib_cq *cq
if (ib_copy_from_udata(&ucmd, udata, sizeof ucmd))
return -EFAULT;
- cq->resize_buf = kmalloc(sizeof *cq->resize_buf, GFP_ATOMIC);
+ cq->resize_buf = kmalloc(sizeof *cq->resize_buf, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!cq->resize_buf)
return -ENOMEM;
--
2.7.4
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread[parent not found: <1469768323-8093-1-git-send-email-roland-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [PATCH] IB/mlx4: Allocation of CQ resize structure doesn't need to be atomic [not found] ` <1469768323-8093-1-git-send-email-roland-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> @ 2016-07-31 6:42 ` Leon Romanovsky 2016-08-02 17:52 ` Doug Ledford 1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Leon Romanovsky @ 2016-07-31 6:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roland Dreier Cc: Yishai Hadas, Doug Ledford, linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 864 bytes --] On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 09:58:43PM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: > From: Roland Dreier <roland-BHEL68pLQRGGvPXPguhicg@public.gmane.org> > > We allocate a small tracking structure as part of mlx4_ib_resize_cq(). > However, we don't need to use GFP_ATOMIC -- immediately after the > allocation, we call mlx4_cq_resize(), which allocates a command > mailbox with GFP_KERNEL and then sleeps on a firmware command, so we > better not be in an atomic context. > > This actually has a real impact, because when this GFP_ATOMIC > allocation fails (and GFP_ATOMIC does fail in practice) then a > userspace consumer resizing a CQ will get a spurious failure that we > can easily avoid. > > Signed-off-by: Roland Dreier <roland-BHEL68pLQRGGvPXPguhicg@public.gmane.org> Thanks, Reviewed-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] IB/mlx4: Allocation of CQ resize structure doesn't need to be atomic [not found] ` <1469768323-8093-1-git-send-email-roland-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> 2016-07-31 6:42 ` Leon Romanovsky @ 2016-08-02 17:52 ` Doug Ledford 1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Doug Ledford @ 2016-08-02 17:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roland Dreier, Yishai Hadas; +Cc: linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 947 bytes --] On Thu, 2016-07-28 at 21:58 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: > From: Roland Dreier <roland-BHEL68pLQRGGvPXPguhicg@public.gmane.org> > > We allocate a small tracking structure as part of > mlx4_ib_resize_cq(). > However, we don't need to use GFP_ATOMIC -- immediately after the > allocation, we call mlx4_cq_resize(), which allocates a command > mailbox with GFP_KERNEL and then sleeps on a firmware command, so we > better not be in an atomic context. > > This actually has a real impact, because when this GFP_ATOMIC > allocation fails (and GFP_ATOMIC does fail in practice) then a > userspace consumer resizing a CQ will get a spurious failure that we > can easily avoid. > > Signed-off-by: Roland Dreier <roland-BHEL68pLQRGGvPXPguhicg@public.gmane.org> > Thanks, I reworded the commit subject for length and applied. -- Doug Ledford <dledford-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD [-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-08-02 17:52 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-07-29 4:58 [PATCH] IB/mlx4: Allocation of CQ resize structure doesn't need to be atomic Roland Dreier
[not found] ` <1469768323-8093-1-git-send-email-roland-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
2016-07-31 6:42 ` Leon Romanovsky
2016-08-02 17:52 ` Doug Ledford
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).