[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20061209114723.138b6e89.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 11:47:23 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: vatsa@...ibm.com, Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@...com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Dipankar <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
Gautham shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: workqueue deadlock
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 11:26:52 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org> wrote:
>
> > > > + if (cpu != -1)
> > > > + mutex_lock(&workqueue_mutex);
> > >
> > > events/4 thread itself wanting the same mutex above?
> >
> > Could do, not sure. I'm planning on converting all the locking around
> > here to preempt_disable() though.
>
> please at least use an owner-recursive per-CPU lock,
a wot?
> not a naked
> preempt_disable()! The concurrency rules for data structures changed via
> preempt_disable() are quite hard to sort out after the fact.
> (preempt_disable() is too opaque,
preempt_disable() is the preferred way of holding off cpu hotplug.
> it doesnt attach data structure to
> critical section, like normal locks do.)
the data structure is the CPU, and its per-cpu data. And cpu_online_map.
-
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