[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50C2285A.60806@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 23:03:14 +0530
From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, tj@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, mingo@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
namhyung@...nel.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org, sbw@....edu,
amit.kucheria@...aro.org, rjw@...k.pl, wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 01/10] CPU hotplug: Provide APIs for "light" atomic
readers to prevent CPU offline
On 12/07/2012 03:32 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 01:06 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> The root-cause of this deadlock is again lock-ordering mismatch right?
>> CPU0 takes locks in order A, B
>> CPU1 takes locks in order B, A
>>
>> And the writer facilitates in actually getting deadlocked.
>>
>> I avoid this in this patchset by always taking the locks in the same
>> order. So we won't be deadlocking like this.
>
> OK, I haven't looked closely at the patch yet. I'm currently hacking on
> my own problems. But just from the description above, it looked like you
> were using rw_locks() to be able to inverse the order of the locks.
>
Ah, ok, no problem! I'd be grateful if you could take a look when you
are free :-) I'll post a v3 soon, which has a completely redesigned
synchronization scheme, to address the performance concerns related to
global rwlocks that Tejun raised.
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
--
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