Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 20 Sep 2022 18:27:37 +0900
From:   Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Maurizio Lombardi <mlombard@redhat.com>, vbabka@suse.cz,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, rientjes@google.com, penberg@kernel.org,
        iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] mm: slub: fix flush_cpu_slab()/__free_slab()
 invocations in task context.
Message-ID: <YymHiTyVrdrGYO/h@hyeyoo>
References: <20220919163929.351068-1-mlombard@redhat.com>
 <Yylv4TRbrhwCrCnR@hyeyoo>
 <YylyS7rKigh85sGa@linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YylyS7rKigh85sGa@linutronix.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 09:56:59AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2022-09-20 16:46:41 [+0900], Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> > > @@ -2730,7 +2735,7 @@ static void flush_all_cpus_locked(struct kmem_cache *s)
> > >  		INIT_WORK(&sfw->work, flush_cpu_slab);
> > >  		sfw->skip = false;
> > >  		sfw->s = s;
> > > -		schedule_work_on(cpu, &sfw->work);
> > > +		queue_work_on(cpu, flushwq, &sfw->work);
> > 
> > Hi. what happens here if flushwq failed?
> > 
> > I think avoiding BUG_ON() makes sense,
> > but shouldn't we have fallback method?
> 
> You get an output to act on and fix. The point is that it shouldn't have
> happen in the first place. With the bug_on() that early, chances are
> that you never see anything but a blank screen. So with the warn_on you
> get probably to see the warn_on before you get here.
> 
> Sebastian

Thank you for kind explanation.
Makes sense!

-- 
Thanks,
Hyeonggon