[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171101083116.GA3172@X58A-UD3R>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 17:31:16 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
syzbot
<bot+e7353c7141ff7cbb718e4c888a14fa92de41ebaa@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
jglisse@...hat.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, shli@...com, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, ying.huang@...el.com,
kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: possible deadlock in lru_add_drain_all
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 04:25:32PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> But this report only includes a single (cpu-up) part and therefore is
Thanks for fixing me, Peter. I thought '#1 -> #2' and '#2 -> #3', where
#2 is 'cpuhp_state', should have been built with two different classes
of #2 as the latest code. Sorry for confusing Michal.
> not affected by that change other than a lock name changing.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists