linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
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 11:19:00 +1030	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y5srbaf7.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120127143234.GA13056@redhat.com>

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.

Cheers,
Rusty.

  reply	other threads:[~2012-01-29 11:38 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 [this message]
2012-01-29 16:31       ` Oleg Nesterov
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=87y5srbaf7.fsf@rustcorp.com.au \
    --to=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
    --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).