lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Dec]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: workqueue deadlock
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 13:19:15 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

>
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:
>
> > This is actually not cpu-hotplug safe ;)
> >
> > > > > {
> > > > > int cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
> > > > > /*
> > > > > * Interrupts/softirqs are hotplug-safe:
> > > > > */
> > > > > if (in_interrupt())
> > > > > return;
> > > > > if (current->hotplug_depth++)
> > > > > return;
> >
> > <preempt, cpu hot-unplug, resume on different CPU>
> >
> > > > > current->hotplug_lock = &per_cpu(hotplug_lock, cpu);
> >
> > <use-after-free>
> >
> > > > > mutex_lock(current->hotplug_lock);
> >
> > And it sleeps, so we can't use preempt_disable().
>
> i explained it in the other mail - this is the 'read' side. The 'write'
> side (code actually wanting to /do/ a CPU hotplug state transition) has
> to take /all/ these locks before it can take a CPU down.

Doesn't matter - the race is still there.

Well, not really, because we don't free the percpu data of offlined CPUs,
but we'd like to.

And it's easily fixable by using a statically-allocated array. That would
make life easier for code which wants to take this lock early in boot too.

> so this is still a global CPU hotplug lock, but made scalable.

Scalability is not the problem. At present, at least.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-12-10 13:39    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site