lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] smp/ipi:Clarify ambiguous comments around deadlock scenarios in smp_call_function variants.
Thanks for the pointer Thomas :)

Regards
Preeti U murthy
On 07/07/2013 01:18 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jul 2013, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>
>> Hi Wang,
>>
>> On 07/06/2013 11:42 AM, Wang YanQing wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 09:57:11PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>>>> Elaborate on when deadlocks can occur when a call is made to
>>>> smp_call_function_single() and its friends. This avoids ambiguity about
>>>> when to use these calls.
>>>>
>>>> + * 2. wait = 0: This function could be called from an interrupt
>>>> + * context, and can get blocked on the csd_lock(csd) below in
>>>> + * "non wait cases".
>>>> + * This is because the percpu copy of csd of this_cpu is used
>>>> + * in non wait cases. Under such circumstances, if the previous caller
>>>> + * of this function who got preempted by this interrupt has already taken
>>>> + * the lock under non wait condition, it will result in deadlock.
>>>> + *
>>>
>>> No, it will not cause deadlock, it is not mutex lock, it is busy wait, so
>>> when the CSD_FLAG_LOCK be cleared, the code will go on running.
>>
>> A deadlock might not result, but a potential long wait in an interrupt
>> context could result if the source cpu got preempted by an interrupt
>> between csd_lock(csd) and generic_exec_single(), where it actually
>> sends an ipi to the target cpu.
>
> See https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/5/183 and the related thread for real
> deadlock scenarios.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-07 19:01    [W:0.051 / U:0.344 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site