[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A70FD26.1010800@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:53:42 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Miao Xie <miaox@...fujitsu.com>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpusets: fix deadlock with cpu_down()->cpuset_lock()
Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/29, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> I strongly believe the bug does exist, but this patch needs the review
>> from maintainers.
>
> Yes...
>
>> IOW, with this patch migration_call(CPU_DEAD) runs without callback_mutex,
>> but kernel/cpuset.c always takes get_online_cpus() before callback_mutex.
>
> Oh. I'm afraid this is not an option.
>
> callback_mutex should nest under cgroup_mutex, but cpu hotplu pathes
> take cgroup_mutex under cpu_hotplug->lock. Lockdep won't be happy.
>
> Oleg.
>
We have made great effort to remove get_online_cpus() from cgroup_mutex
critical region.
We can migrate the owner of callback_mutex in migration_call(CPU_DEAD)
at first(and then take callback_mutex and migrate others).
It fixes this bug, but it can't help for your
"cpu_hotplug: don't play with current->cpus_allowed" patch.
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