On 02/26, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
>
> On 2/8/19 2:03 PM, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2/6/19 7:06 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >> Ravi, I am on vacation till the end of this week, can't read your patch
> >> carefully.
> >>
> >> I am not sure I fully understand the problem, but shouldn't we change
On 2/8/19 2:03 PM, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
>
>
> On 2/6/19 7:06 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> Ravi, I am on vacation till the end of this week, can't read your patch
>> carefully.
>>
>> I am not sure I fully understand the problem, but shouldn't we change
>> binder_alloc_free_page() to use mmput_as
On 2/6/19 7:06 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Ravi, I am on vacation till the end of this week, can't read your patch
> carefully.
>
> I am not sure I fully understand the problem, but shouldn't we change
> binder_alloc_free_page() to use mmput_async() ? Like it does if trylock
> fails.
I don't un
Ravi, I am on vacation till the end of this week, can't read your patch
carefully.
I am not sure I fully understand the problem, but shouldn't we change
binder_alloc_free_page() to use mmput_async() ? Like it does if trylock
fails.
In any case, I don't think memalloc_nofs_save() is what we need,
There can be a deadlock between delayed_uprobe_lock and
fs_reclaim like:
CPU0 CPU1
lock(fs_reclaim);
lock(delayed_uprobe_lock);
lock(fs_reclaim);
lock(delayed_uprob
5 matches
Mail list logo
