[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130314085136.13358830385003e4263ec1f4@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:51:36 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Artem Savkov <artem.savkov@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, viakernel.org@....dyndns.org,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: missing idr_preload_end() in
worker_pool_assign_id()
Hi Tejun,
On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:57:45 -0700 Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> (cc'ing Stephen and linux-next)
>
> Hello, Artem.
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 09:51:32PM +0400, Artem Savkov wrote:
> > Added missing idr_preload_end() call in worker_pool_assign_id().
> > Without it preemption stays disabled resulting in lots of "scheduling while
> > atomic" BUGs during boot.
> ...
> > Introduced in "workqueue: convert to idr_alloc()"
>
> That patch doesn't use idr_preload(). It looks like the issue is
> introduced during linux-next merge of wq/for-3.10 and idr patches in
> -mm. Stephen, can you please add idr_preload_end() to the merge
> patch?
Oops, sorry about that. I assume it needs to be added just after the
spin_unlock_irq() but still inside the loop?
> Once the idr patches land in Linus' tree, I'll resolve the conflict
> from wq tree side.
Or you could do what Linus prefers and just tell him how to resolve the
conflict and thereby avoid a back merge or rebase (or provide him with a
separate branch that does the back merge with resolution in addition to
the unmerged branch to pull).
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@...b.auug.org.au
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists