From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 10 May 2001 13:31:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 10 May 2001 13:31:13 -0400 Received: from ns.suse.de ([213.95.15.193]:40717 "HELO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 10 May 2001 13:31:02 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 19:30:47 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Alan Cox Cc: Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com Subject: Re: Deadlock in 2.2 sock_alloc_send_skb? Message-ID: <20010510193047.A22970@gruyere.muc.suse.de> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk on Thu, May 10, 2001 at 01:57:49PM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 01:57:49PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > If that happens, and the socket uses GFP_ATOMIC allocation, the while (1) > > loop in sock_alloc_send_skb() will endlessly spin, without ever calling > > schedule(), and all the time holding the kernel lock ... > > If the socket is using GFP_ATOMIC allocation it should never loop. That is > -not-allowed-. It is just not clear why any socket should use GFP_ATOMIC. I can understand it using GFP_BUFFER e.g. for nbd, but GFP_ATOMIC seems to be rather radical and fragile. -Andi