From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: + kmod-avoid-deadlock-by-recursive-kmod-call.patch added to -mm tree
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:31:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120129163141.GC20803@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87y5srbaf7.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
On 01/29, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:32:34 +0100, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 01/27, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:56:12 +0100, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > Can't we simply kill khelper_wq and use system_unbound_wq instead?
> > >
> > > I'd prefer that, because then we'd hit the existing "too many modprobes"
> > > check.
> >
> > Hmm. Why? I mean, why do you think that s/khelper_wq/system_unbound_wq/
> > leads to recursive __request_module's ?
> >
> > Note that that this patch (which adds kmod_thread_locker) can not limit
> > the recursive modprobe loop.
> >
> >
> > OK, yes, with system_unbound_wq we can hit this warning if we have
> > max_modprobes UMH_WAIT_EXEC's resulting in __request_module at the
> > same time, but probably this is good?
>
> Yes, that's what I'm saying.
>
> We already have a check against too many modprobes, it might be best to
> use it.
Confused... in this case I do not understand why do you dislike the
idea to kill khelper_wq.
Help!
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-29 16:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-26 17:56 + kmod-avoid-deadlock-by-recursive-kmod-call.patch added to -mm tree Oleg Nesterov
2012-01-27 2:55 ` Rusty Russell
2012-01-27 14:32 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-01-29 0:49 ` Rusty Russell
2012-01-29 16:31 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2012-01-29 23:26 ` Rusty Russell
2012-01-30 0:25 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-30 13:03 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-01-30 17:28 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-03 18:00 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-02-03 19:26 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-04 12:56 ` + kmod-avoid-deadlock-by-recursive-kmod-call.patch added to-mm tree Tetsuo Handa
2012-02-06 17:19 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-01-30 12:38 ` + kmod-avoid-deadlock-by-recursive-kmod-call.patch added to -mm tree Oleg Nesterov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120129163141.GC20803@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).