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    [W:0.023 / U:0.132 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site