On Tue 15-05-18 11:59:25, Pavel Tatashin wrote: > > 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. If we do we will probably need to think more about a more systematic solution. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
