Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263651AbTIBIjZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Sep 2003 04:39:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263649AbTIBIjZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Sep 2003 04:39:25 -0400 Received: from dyn-ctb-203-221-73-133.webone.com.au ([203.221.73.133]:15366 "EHLO chimp.local.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263651AbTIBIjS (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Sep 2003 04:39:18 -0400 Message-ID: <3F545731.80808@cyberone.com.au> Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 18:39:13 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030827 Debian/1.4-3 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mitchell Blank Jr CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] might_sleep() improvements References: <20030902075145.GA12817@sfgoth.com> <3F545175.1080505@cyberone.com.au> <20030902083256.GA52644@gaz.sfgoth.com> In-Reply-To: <20030902083256.GA52644@gaz.sfgoth.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1510 Lines: 43 Mitchell Blank Jr wrote: >Nick Piggin wrote: > >>>Andrew - I thought this might be appropriate for -mm kernels. >>> >>>This patch makes the following improvements to might_sleep(): >>> >>>o Add a "might_sleep_if()" macro for when we might sleep only if some >>> condition is met. I think this is a bit better than the currently used >>> "if (cond) might_sleep();" since it's clearer that the test won't be >>> compiled in if spinlock sleep debugging is turned off. (Obviously >>> gcc is smart enough to omit simple conditions in that case) It also >>> looks cleaner, IMO. Think of it as analogous to BUG()/BUG_ON(). >>> >>> >>I think these should be pushed down to where the sleeping >>actually happens if possible. >> > >No, you want to generate the warning as early as possible in case the >sleeping case happens very infrequently. For instance: > > newskb = skb_unshare(skb, GFP_KERNEL); > >might not even need to do any allocation (much less a sleep) in 99.9% of >cases, but it's still a bug if it's called in atomic context and we want >spinlock sleep debugging to catch that for us. > > Yeah well in this case I guess skb_unshare is as low as might_sleep can be pushed. I guess I don't have a problem with might_sleep_if as long as its used nicely. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/