[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170208122154.GJ5686@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 13:21:55 +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 Wed 08-02-17 13:02:07, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170207201950.20482-1-mhocko@kernel.org
>
> Well, yes. It's simple, but from an RT point of view I really don't like
> it as we have to fix it up again.
I thought that preempt_disable would turn into migrate_disable or
something like that which shouldn't cause too much trouble. Or am I
missing something? Which part of the patch is so RT unfriendly?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists