[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060822135327.GB29577@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:53:27 +0200
From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Lockdep message on workqueue_mutex
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 02:36:32PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 14:10 +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > git commit 9b41ea7289a589993d3daabc61f999b4147872c4 causes the lockdep
> > message below on cpu hotplug (git kernel of today).
> >
> > We have:
> >
> > cpu_down (takes cpu_add_remove_lock)
> > [CPU_DOWN_PREPARE]
> > blocking_notifier_call_chain (takes (cpu_chain).rwsem)
> > workqueue_cpu_callback (takes workqueue_mutex)
> > blocking_notifier_call_chain (releases (cpu_chain).rwsem)
> > [CPU_DEAD]
> > blocking_notifier_call_chain (takes (cpu_chain).rwsem)
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > -> reverse locking order, since we still hold workqueue_mutex.
> >
> > But since all of this is protected by the cpu_add_remove_lock this looks
> > legal. Well, at least it's safe as long as no other cpu callback function
> > does anything that will take the workqueue_mutex as well.
>
> so you're saying this locking is entirely redundant ? ;-)
No, I'm just saying that I think that it currently cannot deadlock. But I
think the workqueue cpu hotplug code should be changed, so that it doesn't
return with the workqueue_mutex being held.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists