Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 29 Jan 2012 16:25:11 -0800 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: + kmod-avoid-deadlock-by-recursive-kmod-call.patch added to -mm tree |
| |
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 09:56:44AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:31:41 +0100, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> 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 <oleg@redhat.com> 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
| |