[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151102192053.GC9553@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 14:20:53 -0500
From: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, oleg@...hat.com,
kwalker@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org,
vdavydov@...allels.com, skozina@...hat.com, mgorman@...e.de,
riel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,vmscan: Use accurate values for zone_reclaimable()
checks
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 04:01:37PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
...
> which is perfectly suited for the stable backport, OOM sysrq resp. any
> sysrq which runs from the WQ context should be as robust as possible and
> shouldn't rely on all the code running from WQ context to issue a sleep
> to get unstuck. So I definitely support something like this patch.
Well, sysrq wouldn't run successfully either on a cpu which is busy
looping with preemption off. I don't think this calls for a new flag
to modify workqueue behavior especially given that missing such flag
would lead to the same kind of lockup. It's a shitty solution. If
the possibility of sysrq getting stuck behind concurrency management
is an issue, queueing them on an unbound or highpri workqueue should
be good enough.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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