lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: INFO: possible circular locking dependency at cleanup_workqueue_thread
    From
    Date
    On Mon, 2009-05-18 at 21:47 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

    > > Maybe it shouldn't do that from the CPU_POST_DEAD
    > > notifier?
    >
    > Well, in any case we should understand why we have the problem, before
    > changing the code. And CPU_POST_DEAD is not special, why should we treat
    > it specially and skip lock_map_acquire(wq->lockdep_map) ?

    I'm not familiar enough with the code -- but what are we really trying
    to do in CPU_POST_DEAD? It seems to me that at that time things must
    already be off the CPU, so ...? On the other hand that calls
    flush_cpu_workqueue() so it seems it would actually wait for the work to
    be executed on some other CPU, within the CPU_POST_DEAD notification?

    johannes
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-05-19 10:55    [W:2.991 / U:0.048 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site