[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070104165727.GA18088@in.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 22:27:27 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Gautham shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] reimplement flush_workqueue()
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 07:31:39PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > AFAIK this deadlock originated from Andrew's patch here:
> >
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/7/231
>
> I don't think so. The core problem is not that we are doing unlock/sleep/lock
> with this patch. The thing is: work->func() can't take wq_mutex (and thus use
> flush_work/workqueue) because it is possible that CPU_DEAD holds this mutex
> and waits for us to complete(kthread_stop_info). I believe this bug is old.
Yes, this bug is quite old looks like. Thanks for correcting me.
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
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