[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1239194906.13185.93.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 14:48:26 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: pm-hibernate : possible circular locking dependency detected
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 12:47 +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 April 2009 16:35:53 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 13:56 +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > Looks like this will be fixed by Andrew's work-on-cpu-in-own-thread
> > > patch which I just put out the pull request for.
> >
> > Would it make sense to teach it about a short-circuit like:
> >
> > work_on_cpu() {
> >
> > if (cpumask_weight(current->cpus_allowed) == 1 &&
> > smp_processor_id() == cpu)
> > return do_work_right_here();
>
> Does that happen much? I guess put a counter in and see?
Ego spotted the case where cpufreq calls it from an cpu-affine
workqueue, it seems to me in that case its desirable to have the
short-cut, and currently that's needed for correctness too as it will
generate this circular lock thingy.
--
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