On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 09:56:59AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2022-09-20 16:46:41 [+0900], Hyeonggon Yoo wrote: > > > @@ -2730,7 +2735,7 @@ static void flush_all_cpus_locked(struct kmem_cache *s) > > > INIT_WORK(&sfw->work, flush_cpu_slab); > > > sfw->skip = false; > > > sfw->s = s; > > > - schedule_work_on(cpu, &sfw->work); > > > + queue_work_on(cpu, flushwq, &sfw->work); > > > > Hi. what happens here if flushwq failed? > > > > I think avoiding BUG_ON() makes sense, > > but shouldn't we have fallback method? > > You get an output to act on and fix. The point is that it shouldn't have > happen in the first place. With the bug_on() that early, chances are > that you never see anything but a blank screen. So with the warn_on you > get probably to see the warn_on before you get here. > > Sebastian Thank you for kind explanation. Makes sense! -- Thanks, Hyeonggon
