On Sun Dec 14, 2025 at 9:13 AM UTC, Yeoreum Yun wrote:

quoted

I don't have the context on what this code is doing so take this with
a grain of salt, but...

The point of the _nolock alloc is to give the allocator an excuse to
fail. Panicking on that failure doesn't seem like a great idea to me?

I thought first whether it changes to "static" memory area to handle
this in PREEMPT_RT.
But since this function is called while smp_cpus_done().
So, I think it's fine since there wouldn't be a contention for
memory allocation in this phase.

Then shouldn't it use _nolock unconditionally?