[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120130130335.GB11414@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:03:35 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: + kmod-avoid-deadlock-by-recursive-kmod-call.patch added to
-mm tree
On 01/29, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> BTW, why does it have to be unbound_wq?
Perhaps we can use another system_wq, but afaics WQ_UNBOUND makes sense
in this case. I mean, there is no reason to bind this work to any CPU.
See also below.
> Is it expected consume large
> amount of CPU cycles?
Currently __call_usermodehelper() does kernel_thread(), this is almost
all. But it can block waiting for kernel_execve().
Not sure this really makes sense, but if we kill khelper_wq perhaps we
can simplify this code a bit. We can change __call_usermodehelper()
if (wait == UMH_WAIT_PROC)
- pid = kernel_thread(wait_for_helper, sub_info,
- CLONE_FS | CLONE_FILES | SIGCHLD);
+ wait_for_helper(...);
else
IOW, the worker thread itself can do the UMH_WAIT_PROC work. This makes
this work really "long running", but then we can kill sub_info->complete
and use flush_work().
Oleg.
--
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