[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1308249871.2682.461.camel@sbsiddha-MOBL3.sc.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:44:31 -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 11:36 -0700, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 20:28 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Peter, I don't think it's that simple. get_online_cpus() itself can't
> > create circular dependency by itself. It allows recursing. The chain
> > involves cpu_hotplug_begin() which returns with hotplug mutex held.
>
>
> Right, its like:
>
> mutex_lock(&a);
> get_online_cpus();
>
> vs
>
> cpu_hotplug_begin()
> mutex_lock(&a);
>
>
> that will really deadlock
Its actually like:
get_online_cpus();
mutex_lock(&a);
get_online_cpus(); <--- recursive get_online_cpus()
vs
cpu_hotplug_begin()
mutex_lock(&a);
So it can't cause deadlock in practice.
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