On Wed 01-04-20 12:18:10, Daniel Jordan wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 06:12:43PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 01-04-20 12:09:29, Daniel Jordan wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 06:00:48PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Wed 01-04-20 17:50:22, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > > On 01.04.20 17:42, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > > This needs a double checking but I strongly believe that the lock can be
> > > > > > simply dropped in this path.
> > >
> > > This is what my fix does, it limits the time the resize lock is held.
> >
> > Just remove it from the deferred intialization and add a comment that we
> > deliberately not taking the lock here because abc
>
> I think it has to be a little more involved because of the window where
> interrupts might allocate during deferred init, as Vlastimil pointed out a few
> years ago when the change was made.
I do not remember any details but do we have any actual real allocation
failure or was this mostly a theoretical concern. Vlastimil? For your
context we are talking about 3a2d7fa8a3d5 ("mm: disable interrupts while
initializing deferred pages")
> I'll explain myself in the changelog.
OK, I will wait for the patch.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
