Re: [PATCH 8/18] 2.6.17.9 perfmon2 patch for review: event sets andmultiplexing support

[Andrew Morton]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 07:50:31 -0700
Stephane Eranian <eranian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > +
> > > +	cachep = ctx->flags.mapset ? pfm_set_cachep : pfm_lg_set_cachep;
> > > +
> > > +	new_set = kmem_cache_alloc(cachep, SLAB_ATOMIC);
> > 
> > SLAB_ATOMIC is unreliable.  Is it possible to use SLAB_KERNEL here?  If
> > coms ecallers can sleep and others cannot then passing in the gfp_flags
> > would permit improvement here.
> > 
> 
> I made some changes and now I know I execute this part of the function
> with interrupts disabled, holding only the perfmon context lock. I assume
> SLAB_KERNEL means, we can sleep. I think I can make this change safely.
> 
> 
> > 
> > > +		if (ctx->flags.mapset) {
> > > +			view_size = PAGE_ALIGN(sizeof(struct pfm_set_view));
> > > +			view      = vmalloc(view_size);
> > 
> > vmalloc() sleeps, so this _could_ have used SLAB_ATOMIC.
> > 
> 
> I am not sure I follow you here. Are you talking about eh kmem_cache_alloc()
> above?
> 

My logic was as follows:

a) vmalloc() can sleep

b) Stephane at some time tested this conde with
   CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK_SLEEP and didn't get sleep-while-atomic warnings out of
   that vmalloc().

c) Hence this code is never called under spinlock, or with local
   interrupts disabled.

d) Hence it is safe to convert the earlier SLAB_ATOMIC into SLAB_KERNEL.


If b) is false then it's the vmalloc() call which is incorrect, not the
SLAB_ATOMIC.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/