[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1407291024300.21390@gentwo.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:26:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
Hakan Akkan <hakanakkan@...il.com>,
Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, hughd@...gle.com,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...nel.org,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: vmstat: On demand vmstat workers V8
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > mm/vmstat.c already has cpu down hooks. See vmstat_cpuup_callback().
>
> Hmmm, well, then it's something else. Either a bug in workqueue or in
> the caller. Given the track record, the latter is more likely.
> e.g. it looks kinda suspicious that the work func is cleared after
> cancel_delayed_work_sync() is called. What happens if somebody tries
Ok we can clear it before then.
Just looked at the current upstream code. It also does a __this_cpu_read()
in refresh_cpu_stats() without triggering the preemption check. What
changed in -next that made the test trigger now?
--
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