Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 10 Aug 2020 22:18:46 +0200
From:   =?iso-8859-2?Q?Micha=B3_Miros=B3aw?= <mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl>
To:     Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: regulator: deadlock vs memory reclaim
Message-ID: <20200810201846.GA12091@qmqm.qmqm.pl>
References: <cover.1597089543.git.mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl>
 <9a5c8ca6-2027-4d89-e290-6db564b99962@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <9a5c8ca6-2027-4d89-e290-6db564b99962@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 11:15:28PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 10.08.2020 23:09, Michał Mirosław пишет:
> > At first I also thought so, but there's more. Below is a lockdep
> > complaint with your patch applied. I did a similar patch and then two more
> > (following) and that is still not enough (sysfs/debugfs do allocations,
> > too).
> Then it should be good to move the locking for init_coupling() like I
> suggested and use GFP_NOWAIT for the two other cases. It all could be a
> single small patch. Could you please check whether GFP_NOWAIT helps?

This would be equivalent to my patches. Problem with sysfs and debugfs
remains as they don't have the option of GFP_NOWAIT. This needs to be
moved outside of the locks.

Best Regards,
Michał Mirosław