Re: [PATCH] ipc/sem: do not sleep with a spin lock held

[Manfred Spraul]

Hi Vasily,

On 12/22/21 16:50, Vasily Averin wrote:
> On 22.12.2021 18:31, Vasily Averin wrote:
> > On 22.12.2021 14:45, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> > > Hi Minghao,
> > >
> > > On 12/22/21 09:10, cgel.zte@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > From: Minghao Chi <chi.minghao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > We can't call kvfree() with a spin lock held, so defer it.
> > I'm sorry, but I do not understand why exactly we cannot use kvfree?
> > Could you explain it in more details?
> Got it,
> there is cond_resched() called in __vfree() -> __vunmap()
>
> However I'm still not sure that in_interrupt() is used correctly here.

I see three different topics:

- is the current code violating the API? I think yes, thus there is a 
bug that needs to be fixed.

- Where is __vunmap() sleeping? Would it be possible to make __vunmap() 
safe to be called when owning a spinlock?

- should kvfree() use vfree() [i.e. unsafe when owning a spinlock] or 
vfree_atomic [i.e. a bit slower, but safe]


As we did quite many s/kfree/kvfree/ changes, perhaps just switching to 
vfree_atomic() is the best solution.

@Andrew: What would you prefer?

In addition, if we do not use vfree_atomic(): Then I would propose to 
copy the might_sleep_if() from vfree() into kvfree()

--

    Manfred