[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 09:11:52 -0400
From: Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
peterz@...radead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
john.ogness@...utronix.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@...ux.ibm.com>, david@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/page_isolation: fix a deadlock with printk()
On Thu, 2019-10-10 at 12:59 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 10-10-19 05:01:44, Qian Cai wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 9, 2019, at 12:23 PM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > If this was only about the memory offline code then I would agree. But
> > > we are talking about any printk from the zone->lock context and that is
> > > a bigger deal. Besides that it is quite natural that the printk code
> > > should be more universal and allow to be also called from the MM
> > > contexts as much as possible. If there is any really strong reason this
> > > is not possible then it should be documented at least.
> >
> > Where is the best place to document this? I am thinking about under
> > the “struct zone” definition’s lock field in mmzone.h.
>
> I am not sure TBH and I do not think we have reached the state where
> this would be the only way forward.
How about I revised the changelog to focus on memory offline rather than making
a rule that nobody should call printk() with zone->lock held?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists