On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:53:13AM -0400, Dennis Dalessandro wrote:
> On 4/11/2018 3:32 AM, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> > i40iw_add_mqh_4() is never called in atomic context, because it
> > calls rtnl_lock() that can sleep.
> > 
> > Despite never getting called from atomic context,
> > i40iw_add_mqh_4() calls kzalloc() with GFP_ATOMIC,
> > which does not sleep for allocation.
> > GFP_ATOMIC is not necessary and can be replaced with GFP_KERNEL,
> > which can sleep and improve the possibility of sucessful allocation.
> Just a general comment. I don't know that this is the greatest idea. I can
> imagine instances where sleeping is OK as far as how the code is written,
> but for performance reasons you would rather fail than sleep.
> As to whether that is the case here I'll let the i40iw folks comment.

In this case, the changes Jia made look safe and not in the perf. path. Thanks!

> > This is found by a static analysis tool named DCNS written by myself.
> > And I also manually check it.
> You should probably post a pointer to your tool.
> -Denny

Reply via email to