Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:31:41 +0100 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: + kmod-avoid-deadlock-by-recursive-kmod-call.patch added to -mm tree |
| |
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.
| |