[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171101113647.243eecf8@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 11:36:47 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
"yuwang.yuwang" <yuwang.yuwang@...baba-inc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: don't warn about allocations which stall for too
long
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:45 +0100
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:
> This was my fear as well. Steven argued that this was theoretical.
> And I do not have a real-life bullets against this argument at
> the moment.
And my argument is still if such a situation happens, the system is so
fscked up that it should just crash.
>
> My current main worry with Steven's approach is a risk of deadlocks
> that Jan Kara saw when he played with similar solution.
And if there exists such a deadlock, then the deadlock exists today.
>
> Also I am afraid that it would add yet another twist to the console
> locking operations. It is already quite hard to follow the logic,
> see the games with:
>
> + console_locked
> + console_suspended
> + can_use_console()
> + exclusive_console
>
> And Steven is going to add:
>
> + console_owner
> + waiter
Agreed. Console_lock is just ugly. And this may just make it uglier :-/
>
> But let's wait for the patch. It might look and work nicely
> in the end.
Oh, I need to write a patch? Bah, I guess I should. Where's all those
developers dying to do kernel programing where I can pass this off to?
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists