[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200810240210.31573.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 02:10:31 +1100
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, travis@....com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] work_on_cpu: use on x86/kernel/cpu/intel_cacheinfo.c
On Thursday 23 October 2008 20:46:21 Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/23, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > +static int __cpuinit detect_cache_attributes(unsigned int cpu)
> > +{
> > + int retval;
> > +
> > + if (num_cache_leaves == 0)
> > + return -ENOENT;
> > +
> > + per_cpu(cpuid4_info, cpu) = kzalloc(
> > + sizeof(struct _cpuid4_info) * num_cache_leaves, GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (per_cpu(cpuid4_info, cpu) == NULL)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + retval = work_on_cpu(cpu, get_cpu_leaves, NULL);
>
> This doesn't look right.
>
> cache_add_dev()->cpuid4_cache_sysfs_init()->detect_cache_attributes()
> is called by CPU_ONLINE under cpu_hotplug_begin(), this is deadlockable.
>
> Yes, the caller (cpu_hotplug.active_writer) can safely take
> get_online_cpus(), but if we have another pending work which needs
> get_online_cpus(), we have the deadlock.
Hi Oleg,
Nice catch. Can we use smp_call_function here instead?
Rusty.
>
> 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