[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0903181736170.31583@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:51:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [BUG] circular lock dependency in tip
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
>
> Seems that the issue is that we have:
>
> static void idle_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq)
> {
> struct sched_domain *sd;
> int pulled_task = 0;
> unsigned long next_balance = jiffies + HZ;
> cpumask_var_t tmpmask;
>
> if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&tmpmask, GFP_ATOMIC))
> return;
Is this really a good idea? I mean, if the system is very active, it can
easily fail to acquire memory, you just need to have cache filled.
Remember, this is GFP_ATOMIC, if the memory is not available, then we do
not try to reclaim. With the system busy, this may be exactly the time we
need to do the idle_balance.
I'm thinking a blind conversion of cpumask_var_t is not the best way to
handle changes. This is as bad as fixing compiler warnings without looking
into the real cause.
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists