[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070109122740.GC22080@in.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 17:57:40 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Cc: Benjamin Gilbert <bgilbert@...cmu.edu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Gautham shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: Failure to release lock after CPU hot-unplug canceled
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 01:17:38PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> missing in kernel cpu.c in _cpu_down() in case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE
> returned with NOTIFY_BAD. However... this reveals that there is just a
> more fundamental problem.
>
> The workqueue code grabs a lock on CPU_[UP|DOWN]_PREPARE and releases it
> again on CPU_DOWN_FAILED/CPU_UP_CANCELED. If something in the callchain
> returns NOTIFY_BAD the rest of the entries in the callchain won't be
> called anymore. But DOWN_FAILED/UP_CANCELED will be called for every
> entry.
> So we might even end up with a mutex_unlock(&workqueue_mutex) even if
> mutex_lock(&workqueue_mutex) hasn't been called...
This is a known problem. Gautham had sent out patches to address them
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/11/14/93
Looks like they are in latest mm tree. Perhaps the testcase should be
retried against latest mm.
--
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