[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061210121914.GA20466@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 13:19:15 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
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
* Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org> wrote:
> This is actually not cpu-hotplug safe ;)
>
> > > > {
> > > > int cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
> > > > /*
> > > > * Interrupts/softirqs are hotplug-safe:
> > > > */
> > > > if (in_interrupt())
> > > > return;
> > > > if (current->hotplug_depth++)
> > > > return;
>
> <preempt, cpu hot-unplug, resume on different CPU>
>
> > > > current->hotplug_lock = &per_cpu(hotplug_lock, cpu);
>
> <use-after-free>
>
> > > > mutex_lock(current->hotplug_lock);
>
> And it sleeps, so we can't use preempt_disable().
i explained it in the other mail - this is the 'read' side. The 'write'
side (code actually wanting to /do/ a CPU hotplug state transition) has
to take /all/ these locks before it can take a CPU down.
so this is still a global CPU hotplug lock, but made scalable.
Ingo
-
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