Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: fix potential deadlock on zonelist_update_seq seqlock

Tetsuo Handa
2023-04-04T11:20:07Z

On 2023/04/04 20:05, Michal Hocko wrote:
> But you are right that GFP_ATOMIC allocations from IRQ context are quite
> common so this is a more general situation that doesn't really need to
> involve TTY and some locking oddities there.

Yes, that's why "[PATCH] mm/page_alloc: don't check zonelist_update_seq from
atomic allocations" was proposed; I consider that zonelist_update_seq should
not be checked from atomic context.

From lockdep perspective, keeping locking dependency simpler is the better,
even if we go with printk_deferred_enter()/printk_deferred_exit() approach.