Re: [PATCH] mm: use in_atomic() in print_vma_addr()

From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com>,
	"yang.s@alibaba-inc.com" <yang.s@alibaba-inc.com>,
	"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"joe@perches.com" <joe@perches.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: use in_atomic() in print_vma_addr()
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 11:05:58 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171106100558.GD3165@worktop.lehotels.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171105081946.yr2pvalbegxygcky@dhcp22.suse.cz>

On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 09:19:46AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [CC Peter]
> 
> On Fri 03-11-17 20:09:49, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 11:02 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Also, checkpatch says
> > > 
> > > WARNING: use of in_atomic() is incorrect outside core kernel code
> > > #43: FILE: mm/memory.c:4491:
> > > +       if (in_atomic())
> > > 
> > > I don't recall why we did that, but perhaps this should be revisited?
> > 
> > Is the comment above in_atomic() still up-to-date? From <linux/preempt.h>:
> > 
> > /*
> >  * Are we running in atomic context?  WARNING: this macro cannot
> >  * always detect atomic context; in particular, it cannot know about
> >  * held spinlocks in non-preemptible kernels.  Thus it should not be
> >  * used in the general case to determine whether sleeping is possible.
> >  * Do not use in_atomic() in driver code.
> >  */
> > #define in_atomic()	(preempt_count() != 0)
> 
> I can still see preempt_disable NOOP for !CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT kernels
> which makes me think this is still a valid comment.

Yes the comment is very much accurate.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>