lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jul]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] mm: silence soft lockups from unlock_page
I understand the pragmatic considerations here, but I'm quite concerned about 
the maintainability and long-term ability to reason about a patch like this.
For example, how do we know when this patch is safe to remove? Also, what other
precedent does this set for us covering for poor userspace behaviour?

Speaking as a systemd maintainer, if udev could be doing something better on
these machines, we'd be more than receptive to help fix it. In general I am
against explicit watchdog tweaking here because a.) there's potential to mask
other problems, and b.) it seems like the kind of one-off trivia nobody is
going to remember exists when doing complex debugging in future.

Is there anything preventing this being remedied in udev, instead of the
kernel?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-07-21 16:19    [W:0.150 / U:0.360 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site