[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20061210220343.e58614ae.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 22:03:43 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: vatsa@...ibm.com
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, bjorn.helgaas@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
myron.stowe@...com, axboe@...nel.dk, dipankar@...ibm.com,
ego@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: workqueue deadlock
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:15:45 +0530 Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 04:16:00AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > One quite different way of addressing all of this is to stop using
> > stop_machine_run() for hotplug synchronisation and switch to the swsusp
> > freezer infrastructure: all kernel threads and user processes need to stop
> > and park themselves in a known state before we allow the CPU to be removed.
> > lock_cpu_hotplug() becomes a no-op.
>
> Well ...you still need to provide some mechanism for stable access to
> cpu_online_map in blocking functions (ex: do_event_scan_all_cpus).
> Freezing-tasks/Resuming-them-after-hotp-unplug is definitely not one of them
> (when they resume, online_map would have changed under their feet).
Problems will only occur if a process is holding some sort of per-cpu state
across a call to try_to_freeze(). Surely nobody does that.
-
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