[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070107104328.GC13579@in.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 16:13:28 +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 08:34:16PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> I suspect this can't help either.
>
> The problem is that flush_workqueue() may be called while cpu hotplug event
> in progress and CPU_DEAD waits for kthread_stop(), so we have the same dead
> lock if work->func() does flush_workqueue(). This means that Andrew's change
> to use preempt_disable() is good and anyway needed.
Well ..a lock_cpu_hotplug() in run_workqueue() and support for recursive
calls to lock_cpu_hotplug() by the same thread will avoid the problem
you mention. This will need changes to task_struct to track the
recursion depth. Alternately this can be supported w/o changes to
task_struct by 'biasing' readers over writers as I believe Gautham's
patches [1] do.
1. http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/10/26/65
--
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