[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1702080906100.3955@east.gentwo.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 09:06:47 -0600 (CST)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
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, 7 Feb 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > 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.
Inserting or removing hardware is a heavy process. This would help quite a
bit with these issues for loops over active cpus.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists