From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
cl@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: irq lock inversion
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:52:33 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AF3E3D1.7010101@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091106084041.GA22505@elte.hu>
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> My question is, why do we do flags save/restore in pcpu-alloc?
That's strictly for calls from sched_init().
> Do we ever call it with irqs disabled? If yes, then the vfree might
> be unsafe due to vfree() potentially flushing TLBs (on all CPUs) and
> that act of sending IPIs requiring irqs to be enabled.
And when called from sched_init(), it won't call vfree().
> ( Now, Nick has optimized vfree recently to lazy-free areas, but that
> was a statistical optimization: TLB flushes are still possible, just
> done more rarely. So we might end up calling flush_tlb_kernel_range()
> from vfree(). I've Cc:-ed Nick. )
Nevertheless, it would be nice to allow at least the free part to be
called from irqsafe context. vmalloc is doing a lot of things lazily
so deferring TLB flushes to a work wouldn't make much difference, I
suppose?
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-11-06 8:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <86802c440911041008q4969b9bdk15b4598c40bb84bd@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <4AF25FC7.4000502@kernel.org>
[not found] ` <20091105082102.GA2870@elte.hu>
[not found] ` <4AF28D7A.6020209@kernel.org>
2009-11-05 14:31 ` irq lock inversion Jiri Kosina
2009-11-06 5:53 ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-06 7:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-06 7:45 ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-06 7:58 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-06 8:24 ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-06 8:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-06 8:52 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2009-11-06 16:08 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-11-06 16:38 ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-06 17:03 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-11-07 16:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-11-09 5:46 ` [PATCH percpu#for-linus] percpu: fix possible deadlock via " Tejun Heo
2009-11-06 9:59 ` Jens Axboe
2009-11-08 9:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-09 15:34 ` Jens Axboe
2009-11-09 15:45 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-09 15:49 ` Jens Axboe
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=4AF3E3D1.7010101@kernel.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jkosina@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=yhlu.kernel@gmail.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox