[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121207210126.GA18520@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 22:01:26 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: 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,
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 v2 01/10] CPU hotplug: Provide APIs for "light"
atomic readers to prevent CPU offline
On 12/07, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>
> CPU 0 CPU 1
> ------ ------
>
> 1. Acquire lock A Increment CPU1's
> atomic counter
>
>
>
> 2. Increment CPU0's Try to acquire lock A
> atomic counter
>
>
> Now consider what happens if a hotplug writer (cpu_down) begins,
Exactly. So the fake lockdep_map should be per-cpu as well.
lglock doesn't need this because lg_local_lock() is not recursive
and lockdep can catch the bug like this. So it can look as single
lock for lockdep.
IOW. If you use the global lockdep_map and want lockdep to notice
this deadlock you need rwlock_acquire_read(map, 0, 0, IP). But then
lockdep will complain if the task does "read lock" under "read lock".
Oleg.
--
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