lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] cpuhotplug: use rw_semaphore for cpu_hotplug
On 05/29, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 05/29, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 29 May 2009 16:29:30 +0800
> > Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Current get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus() re-implement
> > > a rw_semaphore,
> > > so it is converted to a real rw_semaphore in this fix.
> > > It simplifies codes, and is good for read.
> >
> > > static struct {
> > > - struct task_struct *active_writer;
> > > - struct mutex lock; /* Synchronizes accesses to refcount, */
> > > /*
> > > - * Also blocks the new readers during
> > > - * an ongoing cpu hotplug operation.
> > > + * active_writer makes get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus() are allowd
> > > + * to be nested in cpu_hotplug_begin()/cpu_hotplug_done().
> > > + *
> > > + * Thus, get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus() can be called in
> > > + * CPU notifiers.
> > > */
> > > - int refcount;
> > > + struct task_struct *active_writer;
> > > + struct rw_semaphore rwlock;
> > > } cpu_hotplug;
>
> But, afaics, down_write() blocks new readers.
>
> This means that with this patch get_online_cpus() is not recursive, no?

And please note that the current code drops mutex when get_online_cpus()
succeeds. With your patch (if I read it correctly) the code under get_()
runs with cpu_hotplug->rwlock held for reading. I'm afraid this creates
the new possibilities for deadlocks.

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-05-29 23:25    [W:0.049 / U:7.312 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site