From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752998AbeCQVKV (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Mar 2018 17:10:21 -0400 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:58016 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751487AbeCQVKU (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Mar 2018 17:10:20 -0400 Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 22:10:13 +0100 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Scott Wood Cc: Joerg Roedel , iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10 v2] iommu/amd: lock splitting & GFP_KERNEL allocation Message-ID: <20180317211013.rlou66s542ad4y2i@linutronix.de> References: <20180316201836.7864-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <1521316194.3722.74.camel@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1521316194.3722.74.camel@redhat.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180223 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2018-03-17 14:49:54 [-0500], Scott Wood wrote: > On Fri, 2018-03-16 at 21:18 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > The goal here is to make the memory allocation in get_irq_table() not > > with disabled interrupts and having as little raw_spin_lock as > > possible > > while having them if the caller is also holding one (like desc->lock > > during IRQ-affinity changes). > > I reverted one patch one patch in the iommu while rebasing since it > > make job easier. > > If the goal is to have "as little raw_spin_lock as possible" -- and > presumably also to avoid unnecessary complexity -- wouldn't it be > better to leave my patch in, and drop patches 4 and 9? 9 gives me GFP_KERNEL instead atomic so no. 4 is needed I think but I could double check on Monday. > -Scott Sebastian