On Wed 08-02-17 09:11:06, Cristopher Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 8 Feb 2017, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > Huch? stop_machine() is horrible and heavy weight. Don't go there, there > > > must be simpler solutions than that. > > > > Absolutely agreed. We are in the page allocator path so using the > > stop_machine* is just ridiculous. And, in fact, there is a much simpler > > solution [1] > > That is nonsense. stop_machine would be used when adding removing a > processor. There would be no need to synchronize when looping over active > cpus anymore. get_online_cpus() etc would be removed from the hot > path since the cpu masks are guaranteed to be stable. I have no idea what you are trying to say and how this is related to the deadlock we are discussing here. We certainly do not need to add stop_machine the problem. And yeah, dropping get_online_cpus was possible after considering all fallouts. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
