[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160610145916.d071635d6462e4d837959e45@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 14:59:16 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: mhocko <mhocko@...e.de>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
linux-kernel-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [mmots-2016-06-09-16-49] sleeping function called from
slab_alloc()
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 11:55:54 +0200 mhocko <mhocko@...e.de> wrote:
> On 2016-06-10 11:50, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > forked from http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=146553910928716&w=2
> >
> > new_slab()->BUG->die()->exit_signals() can be called from atomic
> > context: local IRQs disabled in slab_alloc().
>
> I have sent a patch to drop the BUG() from that path today. It
> is just too aggressive way to react to a non-critical bug.
> See
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1465548200-11384-2-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org
Doesn't this simply mean that Sergey's workload will blurt a pr_warn()
rather than a BUG()? That still needs fixing. Confused.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists