[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191121010527.GB191121@google.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 10:05:27 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Qian Cai <cai@....pw>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/skbuff: silence warnings under memory pressure
On (19/11/20 17:13), Petr Mladek wrote:
[..]
> It is the first time that I hear about problem caused by the
> irq_work(). But we deal with deadlocks caused by wake_up() for years.
> It would be like replacing a lightly dripping tap with a heavily
> dripping one.
>
> I see reports with WARN() from scheduler code from time to time.
> I would get reports about silent death instead.
Just curious, how many of those WARN() come under rq lock or pi_lock?
// this is real question
> RT guys are going to make printk() fully lockless. It would be
> really great achievement. irq_work is lockless. While wake_up()
> is not.
>
> There must be a better way how to break the infinite loop caused
> by the irq_work.
A lockless wake_up() would do :)
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists