On Monday 11 February 2008 13:46:25 Ingo Molnar wrote:
Yes.
I don't know.
Review.
The memory hotplug code already uses GFP_ATOMIC elsewhere (spp_getpage)
The existing code already does GFP_ATOMIC. I admit I haven't double
checked why it does that (didn't read the complete path) but I assume
it takes a spin lock somewhere.
If there is no lock doing a general clean up of all of them would probably
make sense. But it would be orthogonal to my patch and I don't think
it's needed to fix this concrete bug.
The gfp argument is not needed though because this
case can be already distingushed by checking after_bootmem.
The existing code already panics elsewhere (spp_getpage); i just copied
that.
So in summary the panic&GFP_ATOMIC use are not good (I agree), but it's
not worse than what was in there before.
-Andi
--