From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S941889AbcJYQwm (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:52:42 -0400 Received: from mail-ua0-f182.google.com ([209.85.217.182]:38154 "EHLO mail-ua0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753859AbcJYQwk (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:52:40 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20161025154301.GA12015@redhat.com> References: <20161025110508.9052-1-roman.penyaev@profitbricks.com> <20161025140333.GB4326@redhat.com> <20161025154301.GA12015@redhat.com> From: Andy Lutomirski Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:52:18 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] kthread: allocate kthread structure using kmalloc To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Roman Pen , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Tejun Heo , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 10/25, Oleg Nesterov wrote: >> >> On 10/25, Roman Pen wrote: >> > >> > This patch avoids allocation of kthread structure on a stack, and simply >> > uses kmalloc. >> >> Oh. I didn't even read this patch, but I have to admit I personally do not >> like it. I can be wrong, but imo this is the step to the wrong direction. > > And after I tried to actually read it I dislike it even more, sorry Roman. > Starting from the fact it moves kthread_create_info into struct kthread. Would it perhaps make sense to do something like Roman's patch for 4.9 and then consider further changes down the road? Roman's patch appears to fix a real bug, and I think that, while not really ideal, the code is an incredible mess right now and Roman's patch (assuming it's correct) makes it considerably nicer.