[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1308245872.2682.369.camel@sbsiddha-MOBL3.sc.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:37:52 -0700
From: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] stop_machine: kill __stop_machine()
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 05:12 -0700, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 19:06 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Please have a look at:
>
> ---
> commit d91309f69b7bdb64aeb30106fde8d18c5dd354b5
> Author: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Date: Fri Feb 11 22:07:46 2011 +0100
>
> x86: Fix text_poke_smp_batch() deadlock
>
> Fix this deadlock - we are already holding the mutex:
>
...
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c b/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
> index 1236085..7038b95 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
> @@ -671,7 +671,7 @@ void __kprobes text_poke_smp_batch(struct text_poke_param *params, int n)
>
> atomic_set(&stop_machine_first, 1);
> wrote_text = 0;
> - stop_machine(stop_machine_text_poke, (void *)&tpp, NULL);
> + __stop_machine(stop_machine_text_poke, (void *)&tpp, NULL);
> }
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE) || defined(HAVE_JUMP_LABEL)
>
Peter, So it looks like we are allowing a new cpu to come online in
parallel, while we poke the text? Isn't it a problem? What am I missing?
thanks,
suresh
--
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