[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50C2366C.3000204@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2012 00:03:16 +0530
From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: 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, oleg@...hat.com, sbw@....edu,
amit.kucheria@...aro.org, rostedt@...dmis.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 v3 1/9] CPU hotplug: Provide APIs to prevent CPU offline
from atomic context
On 12/07/2012 11:46 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, again.
>
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 09:57:24AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> possible. Also, I think the right approach would be auditing each
>> get_online_cpus_atomic() callsites and figure out proper locking order
>> rather than implementing a construct this unusual especially as
>> hunting down the incorrect cases shouldn't be difficult given proper
>> lockdep annotation.
>
> On the second look, it looks like you're implementing proper
> percpu_rwlock semantics
Ah, nice! I didn't realize that I was actually doing what I intended
to avoid! ;-)
Looking at the implementation of lglocks, and going by Oleg's earlier
comment that we just need to replace spinlock_t with rwlock_t in them
to get percpu_rwlocks, I was horrified at the kinds of circular locking
dependencies that they would be prone to, unless used carefully.
So I devised this scheme to be safe, while still having relaxed rules.
But if *this* is what percpu_rwlocks should ideally look like,
then great! :-)
> as readers aren't supposed to induce circular
> dependency directly.
Yep, in this scheme, nobody will end up in circular dependency.
> Can you please work with Oleg to implement
> proper percpu-rwlock and use that for CPU hotplug rather than
> implementing it inside CPU hotplug?
>
Sure, I'd be more than happy to!
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