[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: latest -git: hibernate: possible circular locking dependency detected
On 08/21, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> however, I think there are 2 problems with handle_poweroff()
> [ kernel/power/poweroff.c ]
> (1) it doesn't ensure that the 'cpu' it gets via
> first_cpu(cpu_online_map) can't disappear (race with cpu_down()) on
> the way to schedule_work_on()
> [ I pressume, neither generic sysrq nor console layer takes care of
> it. They shoudn't of course ]
> (2) run_workqueue() [ which in the end calls do_poweroff() ] takes the
> "cwq->lock" (which is lock-2 in our terminology)
> well, actually it release it before calling "work->fun()" but is the
> 'lockdep' annotation right here? Peter?
> (I admit, I never looked at lockdep and do make assumptions on its syntax here).
> The lock-1 will be taken as a result of
> then, do_poweroff() -> kernel_power_off() -> disable_nonboot_cpus()
> which calls cpu_maps_update_begin() and takes "cpu_add_remove_lock"
> and this looks dangerous. Due to the same reason as was before with
> the use of get_online_cpus() by workqueue handlers before
> CPU_POST_DEAD introduction
> (;a=commit;h=3da1c84c00c7e5fa8348336bd8c342f9128b0f14)
> I guess, it may deadlock as the lock-1 has been already taken before
> calling cleanup_workqueue_thread() -> flush_cpu_workqueue() and
> completion of the former chain depends in turn on being able to
> acquire the very same lock.

I apologize in advance if I missed something else in your message,
but I think you are very right. Please look at


 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-21 20:03    [W:0.060 / U:46.936 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site