[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170620182205.6e0390d8@grimm.local.home>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 18:22:05 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: make sysfs file removal asynchronous
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 18:00:11 -0400
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> > > Reported-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> > > Tested-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> > > Fixes: bf5eb3de3847 ("slub: separate out sysfs_slab_release() from sysfs_slab_remove()")
> >
> > Do you think we should add cc:stable [4.11+]?
>
> I think we'd risk more by backporting it through -stable than keeping
> the bug there. The bug is very difficult to hit.
Famous last words.
> Writing to a slub
> sysfs file has to race against kmem_cache destruction and AFAICS all
> slub sysfs files are for debugging.
It's not that big of a change. It's simply moving the work to a work
queue. I've done bigger changes than this and backported it to stable
for similar reasons.
All it takes is for it to be hit once in a billion, and that billionth
time could be critical.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists