[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070106163851.GA13579@in.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 22:08:51 +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] fix-flush_workqueue-vs-cpu_dead-race-update
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 07:30:35PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Stupid me. Thanks.
>
> I'll try to do something else tomorrow. Do you see a simple soulution?
Sigh ..I dont see a simple solution, unless we have something like
lock_cpu_hotplug() ..
Andrew,
This workqueue problem has exposed a classic example of how
tough/miserable it can be to write hotplug safe code w/o something like
lock_cpu_hotplug() ..Are you still inclined towards banning it? :)
FYI, the lock_cpu_hotplug() rewrite proposed by Gautham at
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/10/26/65 may still need refinement to avoid
all the kind of deadlocks we have unearthed with workqueue example. I
can review that design with Gautham if there is some interest to
revive lock_cpu_hotplug() ..
> The current usage of workqueue_mutex (I mean stable kernel) is broken
> and deadlockable. We really need to change it.
Yep ..
--
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