[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4736d199-7e70-6bc3-30e6-0f644c81a10c@bytedance.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2022 23:05:42 +0800
From: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: dvyukov@...gle.com, willy@...radead.org, akinobu.mita@...il.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix unexpected changes to
{failslab|fail_page_alloc}.attr
On 2022/11/7 20:42, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 11:31:09AM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
>
>> @@ -31,9 +33,9 @@ bool __should_failslab(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t gfpflags)
>> return false;
>>
>> if (gfpflags & __GFP_NOWARN)
>> - failslab.attr.no_warn = true;
>> + flags |= FAULT_NOWARN;
>
> You should add a comment here about why this is required, to avoid
> deadlocking printk
I think this comment should be placed where __GFP_NOWARN is specified
instead of here. What do you think? :)
Thanks,
Qi
>
> Jason
--
Thanks,
Qi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists