[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A233B77.3090404@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 10:22:47 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
mingo@...e.hu, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpuhotplug: use rw_semaphore for cpu_hotplug
Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>
> down_read()/up_read() can be nested within down_read()/up_read(),
> so get_online_cpus() is recursive.
>
> And thanks to cpu_hotplug.active_writer, get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus()
> are allowd to be nested in cpu_hotplug_begin()/cpu_hotplug_done().
> So cpu_hotplug_begin() DO NOT blocks readers who are in CPU notifiers.
>
Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>
> The current code drops mutex when get_online_cpus() succeeds, BUT it
> increases the counter as what down_read() does. I think the current
> code has the same deadlocks which the down_read()-implement has.
>
> Since the current code use mutex + counter to implement a "down_read()",
> why not use the down_read() directly?
> And down_read() can be checked by lockdep.
>
Ouch, the kernel rw_semaphore is not Read-preference. All what I said
is garbage. I did miss this, sorry for bothered you all.
Lai
--
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