lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Dec]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: workqueue deadlock

    * Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:

    > > > + if (cpu != -1)
    > > > + mutex_lock(&workqueue_mutex);
    > >
    > > events/4 thread itself wanting the same mutex above?
    >
    > Could do, not sure. I'm planning on converting all the locking around
    > here to preempt_disable() though.

    please at least use an owner-recursive per-CPU lock, not a naked
    preempt_disable()! The concurrency rules for data structures changed via
    preempt_disable() are quite hard to sort out after the fact.
    (preempt_disable() is too opaque, it doesnt attach data structure to
    critical section, like normal locks do.)

    Ingo
    -
    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: 2006-12-09 11:31    [W:0.023 / U:148.580 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site