lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jun]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] stop_machine: kill __stop_machine()
From
Date
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 05:12 -0700, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 19:06 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Please have a look at:
>
> ---
> commit d91309f69b7bdb64aeb30106fde8d18c5dd354b5
> Author: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Date: Fri Feb 11 22:07:46 2011 +0100
>
> x86: Fix text_poke_smp_batch() deadlock
>
> Fix this deadlock - we are already holding the mutex:
>
...
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c b/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
> index 1236085..7038b95 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
> @@ -671,7 +671,7 @@ void __kprobes text_poke_smp_batch(struct text_poke_param *params, int n)
>
> atomic_set(&stop_machine_first, 1);
> wrote_text = 0;
> - stop_machine(stop_machine_text_poke, (void *)&tpp, NULL);
> + __stop_machine(stop_machine_text_poke, (void *)&tpp, NULL);
> }
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE) || defined(HAVE_JUMP_LABEL)
>

Peter, So it looks like we are allowing a new cpu to come online in
parallel, while we poke the text? Isn't it a problem? What am I missing?

thanks,
suresh



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-06-16 19:41    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans