> This will always be a maze as the early boot tends to be. Sad but true. > That is why I am not really convinced we should use a large hammer and > disallow deferred page initialization just because UP implementation of > pcp does something too early. We should instead rule that one odd case. > Your patch simply doesn't rule a large class of potential issues. It > just rules out a potentially useful feature for an odd case. See my > point? Hi Michal, OK, I will send an updated patch with disabling deferred pages only whe NEED_PER_CPU_KM. Hopefully, we won't see similar issues in other places. Thank you, Pavel
