[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080725094246.GA110@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:42:46 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, harbour@...nx.od.ua, pavel@....cz,
rjw@...k.pl
Subject: Re: + pm-introduce-new-interfaces-schedule_work_on-and-queue_work_on.patch added to -mm tree
On 07/25, Zhang Rui wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 20:43 +0800, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > This means that
> >
> > pm-schedule-sysrq-poweroff-on-boot-cpu.patch
> >
> > is not 100% right. It is still possible to hang/deadlock if we race
> > with cpu_down(first_cpu(cpu_online_map)).
>
> Yes, you're right.
> But then should we fix disable_nonboot_cpus as well?
>
> int disable_nonboot_cpus(void)
> {
> first_cpu = first_cpu(cpu_online_map);
> ...
>
> for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> if (cpu == first_cpu)
> continue;
> error = _cpu_down(cpu, 1);
> ...
> }
> ...
> }
Note that disable_nonboot_cpus() does first_cpu = first_cpu() under
cpu_maps_update_begin(), so we can't race with cpu-hotplug.
However, this afaics means that its name is wrong, and
printk("Disabling non-boot CPUs ...\n") is not right too.
What it does is disable_all_but_one_cpus().
And, it is not clear why disable_nonboot_cpus() assumes that
all but first_cpu(cpu_online_map) must have .hotpluggable == 1.
And, if one of the callers really need to preserve the boot CPU,
I don't understand how it is guaranteed it must be first_cpu().
Oleg.
--
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