[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121209205733.GA7038@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 21:57:33 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
rostedt@...dmis.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, tj@...nel.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 v3 1/9] CPU hotplug: Provide APIs to prevent CPU
offline from atomic context
On 12/07, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>
> 4. No deadlock possibilities
>
> Per-cpu locking is not the way to go if we want to have relaxed rules
> for lock-ordering. Because, we can end up in circular-locking dependencies
> as explained in https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/6/290
OK, but this assumes that, contrary to what Steven said, read-write-read
deadlock is not possible when it comes to rwlock_t. So far I think this
is true and we can't deadlock. Steven?
However. If this is true, then compared to preempt_disable/stop_machine
livelock is possible. Probably this is fine, we have the same problem with
get_online_cpus(). But if we can accept this fact I feel we can simmplify
this somehow... Can't prove, only feel ;)
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