On Mon 18-09-17 20:38:22, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Sorry about the delay. > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 07:33:42AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > Michal, are you sure that this patch does not cause deadlock? > > > > > > > > As shown in "[PATCH] mm: Use WQ_HIGHPRI for mm_percpu_wq." thread, currently work > > > > items on mm_percpu_wq seem to be blocked by other work items not on mm_percpu_wq. > > IIUC that wasn't a deadlock but more a legitimate starvation from too > many tasks trying to reclaim directly. > > > > But we have a rescuer so we should make a forward progress eventually. > > > Or am I missing something. Tejun, could you have a look please? > > > > ping... I would really appreaciate if you could double check my thinking > > Tejun. This is a tricky area and I would like to prevent further subtle > > issues here. > > So, this shouldn't be an issue. This may get affected by direct > reclaim frenzy but it's only a small piece of the whole symptom and we > gotta fix that at the source. OK, so there shouldn't be any issue with the patch, right? -- 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>
