lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Lockdep complains about commit 1331e7a1bb ("rcu: Remove _rcu_barrier() dependency on __stop_machine()")
On 10/03/2012 03:47 AM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>
>> I don't see how this circular locking dependency can occur.. If you are using SLUB,
>> kmem_cache_destroy() releases slab_mutex before it calls rcu_barrier(). If you are
>> using SLAB, kmem_cache_destroy() wraps its whole operation inside get/put_online_cpus(),
>> which means, it cannot run concurrently with a hotplug operation such as cpu_up(). So, I'm
>> rather puzzled at this lockdep splat..
>
> I am using SLAB here.
>
> The scenario I think is very well possible:
>
>
> CPU 0 CPU 1
> kmem_cache_destroy()

What about the get_online_cpus() right here at CPU0 before
calling mutex_lock(slab_mutex)? How can the cpu_up() proceed
on CPU1?? I still don't get it... :(

(kmem_cache_destroy() uses get/put_online_cpus() around acquiring
and releasing slab_mutex).

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat

> mutex_lock(slab_mutex)
> _cpu_up()
> cpu_hotplug_begin()
> mutex_lock(cpu_hotplug.lock)
> rcu_barrier()
> _rcu_barrier()
> get_online_cpus()
> mutex_lock(cpu_hotplug.lock)
> (blocks, CPU 1 has the mutex)
> __cpu_notify()
> mutex_lock(slab_mutex)
>
> Deadlock.
>
> Right?
>




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-10-03 06:21    [W:0.067 / U:0.556 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site