[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <adaac22c9cu.fsf@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 13:37:37 -0800
From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc: Andy Fleming <afleming@...escale.com>,
"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>,
Ben Collins <ben.collins@...ntu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Export current_is_keventd() for libphy
> a) Ban the calling of flush_scheduled_work() from under rtnl_lock().
> Sounds hard.
Unfortunate if this is happening a lot. It seems like the most
sensible fix -- flush_scheduled_work() is in effect calling into
an unknown and changeable in the future set of functions (since it
waits for them to finish), and it seems error-prone to hold a lock
across such a call.
> This will almost work, as long as it's done in workqueue.c with
> appropriate locking. The bug occurs when some other CPU is running
> phy_change() right now - we'll end up freeing data which that CPU is
> presently playing with.
>
> But perhaps we can take care of this within workqueue.c. We need a
> cancel function which will cancel the work and, if its callback is
> presently executing it will block until that execution has completed.
I may be misunderstanding you, but this seems to deadlock in exactly
the same way: if someone calls this cancel routine holding rtnl_lock,
and the work function that will also take rtnl_lock has just started,
it will get stuck when the work function tries to take rtnl_lock.
- R.
-
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