From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752717Ab2A3AZS (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Jan 2012 19:25:18 -0500 Received: from mail-pz0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:37521 "EHLO mail-pz0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751599Ab2A3AZQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Jan 2012 19:25:16 -0500 Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 16:25:11 -0800 From: Tejun Heo To: Rusty Russell Cc: Oleg Nesterov , Tetsuo Handa , Andrew Morton , Arjan van de Ven , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: + kmod-avoid-deadlock-by-recursive-kmod-call.patch added to -mm tree Message-ID: <20120130002511.GF17211@htj.dyndns.org> References: <20120126175612.GA24011@redhat.com> <87ipjxdfbg.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <20120127143234.GA13056@redhat.com> <87y5srbaf7.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <20120129163141.GC20803@redhat.com> <87aa56qedn.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87aa56qedn.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 09:56:44AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:31:41 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > Confused... in this case I do not understand why do you dislike the > > idea to kill khelper_wq. > > Yes, you are confused. I was agreeing with you: > > On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:56:12 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > Can't we simply kill khelper_wq and use system_unbound_wq instead? BTW, why does it have to be unbound_wq? Is it expected consume large amount of CPU cycles? Thanks. -- tejun