[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170208152106.GP5686@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:21:07 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
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 09:11:06, Cristopher Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > > 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]
>
> That is nonsense. stop_machine would be used when adding removing a
> processor. There would be no need to synchronize when looping over active
> cpus anymore. get_online_cpus() etc would be removed from the hot
> path since the cpu masks are guaranteed to be stable.
I have no idea what you are trying to say and how this is related to the
deadlock we are discussing here. We certainly do not need to add
stop_machine the problem. And yeah, dropping get_online_cpus was
possible after considering all fallouts.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists