[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1272962620.5605.127.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 10:43:40 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
oleg@...hat.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, sivanich@....com,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
josh@...edesktop.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] cpu_stop: implement stop_cpu[s]()
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 09:03 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On 05/04/2010 08:36 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On 05/03/2010 03:26 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 18:09 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >>> +static int cpu_stopper_thread(void *data)
> >>> +{
> >>> + struct cpu_stopper *stopper = data;
> >>
> >> BUG_ON(stopper != __get_cpu_var(cpu_stopper)); ?
> >
> > Added.
>
> Now that I think more about it, there's a subtle race condition with
> the above BUG_ON(). Stoppers are prepared by CPU_UP_PREPARE and
> started by CPU_ONLINE but brought down by CPU_DEAD. IOW, they're
> allowed to run detached from their designated CPUs between CPU_DYING
> and CPU_DEAD (the reponsibility of guaranteeing target cpus's onliness
> is on the callers). So, the above BUG_ON() might trigger spuriously
> if a cpu goes down after brought online before its cpu_stopper had a
> chance to pass through the BUG_ON() test.
Ah indeed. A well, drop it then, its not worth making a more complicated
test.
--
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