Re: + kmod-avoid-deadlock-by-recursive-kmod-call.patch added to -mmtree

[Tejun Heo]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 09:56:44AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:31:41 +0100, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Confused... in this case I do not understand why do you dislike the
> > idea to kill khelper_wq.
> 
> Yes, you are confused.  I was agreeing with you:
> 
>  On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:56:12 +0100, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  > Can't we simply kill khelper_wq and use system_unbound_wq instead?

BTW, why does it have to be unbound_wq?  Is it expected consume large
amount of CPU cycles?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/