[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121229203644.GA31014@leaf>
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 12:36:44 -0800
From: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To: David Decotigny <decot@...glers.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
Amir Vadai <amirv@...lanox.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] lib: cpu_rmap: avoid flushing all workqueues
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:57:09AM -0800, David Decotigny wrote:
> In some cases, free_irq_cpu_rmap() is called while holding a lock
> (eg. rtnl). This can lead to deadlocks, because it invokes
> flush_scheduled_work() which ends up waiting for whole system
> workqueue to flush, but some pending works might try to acquire the
> lock we are already holding.
>
> This commit uses reference-counting to replace
> irq_run_affinity_notifiers(). It also removes
> irq_run_affinity_notifiers() altogether.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Decotigny <decot@...glers.com>
You might consider adding a cpu_rmap_get to parallel cpu_rmap_put.
Also, why keep free_cpu_rmap around at this point? As far as I can
tell, it has no callers.
Otherwise, this looks good to me.
- Josh Triplett
--
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