On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 6:40 AM Taehee Yoo <[email protected]> wrote: > But I'm so sorry I didn't understand some points. > > 1. you said "both side" and I understand these as follows: > a) failure of allocation because of a high order and it is fixed > by 72e09ad107e7 > b) kernel panic because of 72e09ad107e7 > Are these two issues right?
Yes, we can't fix one by reverting the fix for the other. > > 2. So, as far as I understand your mention, these timers are > good to be changed to the delayed works And these timers are mca_timer, > mc_gq_timer, mc_ifc_timer, mc_dad_timer. > Do I understand your mention correctly? > If so, what is the benefit of it? > I, unfortunately, couldn't understand the relationship between changing > timers to the delayed works and these issues. Because a work has process context so we can use GFP_KERNEL allocation rather than GFP_ATOMIC, which is what commit 72e09ad107e7 addresses. Thanks.
