Hello, On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 01:11:45PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > The problem here is not lack > > of execution resource but concurrency management misunderstanding the > > situation. > > And this sounds like a bug to me. I don't know. I can be argued either way, the other direction being a kernel thread going RUNNING non-stop is buggy. Given how this has been a complete non-issue for all the years, I'm not sure how useful plugging this is. > Don't we have some IO related paths which would suffer from the same > problem. I haven't checked all the WQ_MEM_RECLAIM users but from the > name I would expect they _do_ participate in the reclaim and so they > should be able to make a progress. Now if your new IMMEDIATE flag will Seriously, nobody goes full-on RUNNING. > guarantee that then I would argue that it should be implicit for > WQ_MEM_RECLAIM otherwise we always risk a similar situation. What would > be a counter argument for doing that? Not serving any actual purpose and degrading execution behavior. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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>