[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160425144621.07f246158845fc08815c39dd@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 14:46:21 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Dan Streetman <ddstreet@...e.org>
Cc: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, Seth Jennings <sjenning@...hat.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dan Streetman <dan.streetman@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/zpool: use workqueue for zpool_destroy
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:20:10 -0400 Dan Streetman <ddstreet@...e.org> wrote:
> Add a work_struct to struct zpool, and change zpool_destroy_pool to
> defer calling the pool implementation destroy.
>
> The zsmalloc pool destroy function, which is one of the zpool
> implementations, may sleep during destruction of the pool. However
> zswap, which uses zpool, may call zpool_destroy_pool from atomic
> context. So we need to defer the call to the zpool implementation
> to destroy the pool.
>
> This is essentially the same as Yu Zhao's proposed patch to zsmalloc,
> but moved to zpool.
OK, but the refrain remains the same: what are the runtime effects of
the change? Are real people in real worlds seeing scary kernel
warnings? Deadlocks?
This info is needed so that I and others can decide which kernel
version(s) should be patched.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists