Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 9 Dec 2006 11:26:52 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |