Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (01/16/17 12:38), Petr Mladek wrote: > > > apart from that, Tetsuo wasn't really happy with the patch > > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mm/msg103099.html > > > > The complain is questionable. If a code is sensitive for preemption, > > it should disable preemption. > > > > Another question is if people expect that printk() would call > > cond_resched() or preempt. > > my assumption would be that probably people expect printk to work > asap. The code executed with oom_lock held is sensitive for preemption. I tried to disable preemption, but it was not accepted. What is so sorry is that this is not really a problem of printk() because sleeping for minutes (presumably forever) with oom_lock held is triggerable without printk(). It is a problem of memory page allocator which consumes a lot of CPU time for pointless direct reclaim rather than giving CPU time to a thread which held the oom_lock. I tried to wait for oom_lock in order to give CPU time to the thread holding the oom_lock, but it was not accepted neither. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fbdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
