[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201601091607.DFB64048.MSFVFOOtLHJFQO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 16:07:19 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...nel.org,
ben@...adent.org.uk
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arekm@...en.pl, js1304@...il.com,
clameter@....com, tj@...nel.org, lkp@...org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mhocko@...e.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vmstat: allocate vmstat_wq before it is used
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > Was there confirmation this fixed the issue? Just verifying..
I confirmed that
----------
diff --git a/mm/vmstat.c b/mm/vmstat.c
index 4ebc17d..0486d3d 100644
--- a/mm/vmstat.c
+++ b/mm/vmstat.c
@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
#include <linux/mm_inline.h>
#include <linux/page_ext.h>
#include <linux/page_owner.h>
+#include <linux/delay.h>
#include "internal.h"
@@ -1550,6 +1551,7 @@ static int __init setup_vmstat(void)
start_shepherd_timer();
cpu_notifier_register_done();
+ ssleep(3);
vmstat_wq = alloc_workqueue("vmstat", WQ_FREEZABLE|WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 0);
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS
----------
always reproduces this bug and
----------
diff --git a/mm/vmstat.c b/mm/vmstat.c
index 4ebc17d..358c1b7 100644
--- a/mm/vmstat.c
+++ b/mm/vmstat.c
@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
#include <linux/mm_inline.h>
#include <linux/page_ext.h>
#include <linux/page_owner.h>
+#include <linux/delay.h>
#include "internal.h"
@@ -1483,6 +1484,8 @@ static void __init start_shepherd_timer(void)
BUG();
cpumask_copy(cpu_stat_off, cpu_online_mask);
+ ssleep(3);
+ vmstat_wq = alloc_workqueue("vmstat", WQ_FREEZABLE|WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 0);
schedule_delayed_work(&shepherd,
round_jiffies_relative(sysctl_stat_interval));
}
@@ -1550,7 +1553,6 @@ static int __init setup_vmstat(void)
start_shepherd_timer();
cpu_notifier_register_done();
- vmstat_wq = alloc_workqueue("vmstat", WQ_FREEZABLE|WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 0);
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS
proc_create("buddyinfo", S_IRUGO, NULL, &fragmentation_file_operations);
----------
never reproduces this bug. Thus, I think it is OK to sneak it into 4.4.
>
> Oh, and Tetsuo claims that it needs a cc stable regardless, because
> the commit that caused this to appear was marked for stable and
> already got backported. Yes?
>
> Linus
>
Yes, please.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists