[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzy981a8Ab+89APi6Qnb9U9xap=0A6XNc+wZsAWngWPzA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 17:31:52 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2] sched/wait: Introduce lock breaker in wake_up_page_bit
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Let this be a lesson in just *how* little tested, and *how* crap that
> patch probably still is.
I haven't had time to look at it any more (trying to merge the pull
requests that came in today instead), but the more I think about it,
the more I think it was a mistake to do that page_wait_struct
allocation on the stack.
It made it way more fragile and complicated, having to rewrite things
so carefully. A simple slab cache would likely be a lot cleaner and
simpler.
So even if that thing can be made to work, it's probably not worth the pain.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists