From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1754236AbdBHMXk (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:23:40 -0500
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:39484 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751714AbdBHMXY (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:23:24 -0500
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 13:21:55 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: mm: deadlock between get_online_cpus/pcpu_alloc
Message-ID: <20170208122154.GJ5686@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20170207123708.GO5065@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20170207135846.usfrn7e4znjhmogn@techsingularity.net>
 <20170207141911.GR5065@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20170207153459.GV5065@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20170207162224.elnrlgibjegswsgn@techsingularity.net>
 <20170207164130.GY5065@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1702071053380.16150@east.gentwo.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1702072319200.8117@nanos>
 <20170208073527.GA5686@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1702081253590.3536@nanos>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1702081253590.3536@nanos>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed 08-02-17 13:02:07, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170207201950.20482-1-mhocko@kernel.org
> 
> Well, yes. It's simple, but from an RT point of view I really don't like
> it as we have to fix it up again.

I thought that preempt_disable would turn into migrate_disable or
something like that which shouldn't cause too much trouble. Or am I
missing something? Which part of the patch is so RT unfriendly?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs