[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170208073527.GA5686@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 08:35:28 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: mm: deadlock between get_online_cpus/pcpu_alloc
On Tue 07-02-17 23:25:17, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2017, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Feb 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > > I am always nervous when seeing hotplug locks being used in low level
> > > code. It has bitten us several times already and those deadlocks are
> > > quite hard to spot when reviewing the code and very rare to hit so they
> > > tend to live for a long time.
> >
> > Yep. Hotplug events are pretty significant. Using stop_machine_XXXX() etc
> > would be advisable and that would avoid the taking of locks and get rid of all the
> > ocmplexity, reduce the code size and make the overall system much more
> > reliable.
>
> Huch? stop_machine() is horrible and heavy weight. Don't go there, there
> must be simpler solutions than that.
Absolutely agreed. We are in the page allocator path so using the
stop_machine* is just ridiculous. And, in fact, there is a much simpler
solution [1]
[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170207201950.20482-1-mhocko@kernel.org
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists