[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1210221516280.1724-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:18:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
David Decotigny <david.decotigny@...gle.com>,
Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 4/6] net/core: apply pm_runtime_set_memalloc_noio
on network devices
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Ming Lei wrote:
> Deadlock might be caused by allocating memory with GFP_KERNEL in
> runtime_resume callback of network devices in iSCSI situation, so
> mark network devices and its ancestor as 'memalloc_noio_resume'
> with the introduced pm_runtime_set_memalloc_noio().
Is this really needed? Even with iSCSI, doesn't register_disk() have
to be called for the underlying block device? And given your 3/6
patch, wouldn't that mark the network device?
Alan Stern
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists