Re: kmalloc without GFP_xxx?

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >
> > but it sets irqs_disabled() IIRC.
>
> only spin_lock_irq() and co do.
> not the simple spin_lock()
>

It may be dangerous to use spin_lock with interrupts enabled, since you
have to make sure that no interrupt ever grabs that lock.  Although I do
recall seeing a few locks like this.  But even so, you can transfer the
latency of the interrupts going off while holding that lock to another CPU
which IMHO is a bad thing.  Also a simple spin_lock would disable
preemption with CONFIG_PREEMPT set and that would make in_atomic fail.
But to implement a kmalloc_auto you would always need to have a preempt
count.

I'm not for a kmalloc_auto, but something like it would be useful for a
function that can work for either context, and just fail nicely if the
ATOMIC is set and the malloc can't get memory.  A function like this would
currently have to always use ATOMIC even if it could have used KERNEL for
some scenarios, since it would suffer the same pitfalls as a kmalloc_auto
in determining its context.

-- Steve

-
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/