From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752167AbdLPIPI (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Dec 2017 03:15:08 -0500 Received: from mail-io0-f196.google.com ([209.85.223.196]:44613 "EHLO mail-io0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751133AbdLPIPF (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Dec 2017 03:15:05 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosCCZ+TgW1PspFMz+rSLjjiunepTKZf0wy6tLcuoiw+iUn3Td4Q+Wt9e4kXJ933JGsGB5aOaA== From: shrikant Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: base: power: Fix GFP_KERNEL in spinlock context To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Pavel Machek , Len Brown , Greg KH , Linux PM list , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Suniel Mahesh , Karthik Tummala , raghu@techveda.org References: <1513086342-3581-1-git-send-email-shrikant.maurya@techveda.org> Message-ID: <0c191b75-9072-28f1-5f7b-550ddcf3a706@techveda.org> Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 13:44:57 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 12 December 2017 08:28 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Shrikant, > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:45 PM, wrote: >> From: Shrikant Maurya >> >> As reported by Jia-Ju Bai (https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/11/872): >> API's are using GFP_KERNEL to allocate memory which may sleep. >> >> To ensure atomicity such allocations must be avoided in critical >> sections under spinlock. >> Fixed by replacing GFP_KERNEL to GFP_ATOMIC. >> >> Reported-by: Jia-Ju Bai >> Signed-off-by: Shrikant Maurya >> Signed-off-by: Suniel Mahesh >> Signed-off-by: Raghu Bharadwaj >> Signed-off-by: Karthik Tummala > > Can't the call to device_init_wakeup() in isp116x_start() just be moved > below the spinlock release? Can't move it below the spinlock. Value going to be written into HcRhStatus register depends on it: isp116x_write_reg32(isp116x, HCRHSTATUS, val); Instead we can move it before the spinlock. > >> --- a/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c >> +++ b/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c >> @@ -92,11 +92,11 @@ struct wakeup_source *wakeup_source_create(const char *name) >> { >> struct wakeup_source *ws; >> >> - ws = kmalloc(sizeof(*ws), GFP_KERNEL); >> + ws = kmalloc(sizeof(*ws), GFP_ATOMIC); > > With GFP_ATOMIC, allocation failure is much more likely to occur. > So IMHO it's better to fix the isp116x, than to impose this burden on > every user. Absolutely. Thanks for pointing it out, it's not the right solution. > >> if (!ws) >> return NULL; >> >> - wakeup_source_prepare(ws, name ? kstrdup_const(name, GFP_KERNEL) : NULL); >> + wakeup_source_prepare(ws, name ? kstrdup_const(name, GFP_ATOMIC) : NULL); >> return ws; >> } >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(wakeup_source_create); > > Gr{oetje,eeting}s, > > Geert > > -- > Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org > > In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But > when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. > -- Linus Torvalds > Thank you Geert. -- Shrikant techveda.org