Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From:   Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: silence soft lockups from unlock_page
Date:   Tue, 21 Jul 2020 07:44:07 -0400
Message-Id: <664A07B6-DBCD-4520-84F1-241A4E7A339F@lca.pw>
References: <20200721112529.GJ4061@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200721112529.GJ4061@dhcp22.suse.cz>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


> On Jul 21, 2020, at 7:25 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
>=20
> Are these really important? I believe I can dig that out from the bug
> report but I didn't really consider that important enough.

Please dig them out. We have also been running those things on =E2=80=9Clarg=
e=E2=80=9D powerpc as well and never saw such soft-lockups. Those details ma=
y give us some clues about the actual problem. Once we understand the proble=
m better, we may judge if this =E2=80=9Chack=E2=80=9D is really worth it.=