[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wibyrfrpRoyGRwFrLZvrxAg=j5ueTje=4GckJcJSy-pwg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 09:06:18 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: mhocko@...nel.org
Cc: pavel@....cz, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, chanho.min@....com,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "exec: make de_thread() freezable (was: Re: Linux 4.20-rc4)
On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 6:17 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> This argument just doesn't make any sense. Rare bugs are maybe even more
> annoying because you do not expect them to happen.
Absolutely.
And valid lockdep complaints are a real issue too.
So I don't think there's any question that this should be reverted,
the only question is whether I take the revert directly or get it from
the PM tree.
It does sound like the de_thread() behavior needs more work. Maybe,
for example, we need to make it clear that zapped threads are *not*
frozen, and instead the freezer will wait for them to exit?
Hmm?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists