[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51637470.5030906@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 18:52:48 -0700
From: Cody P Schafer <cody@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm/page_alloc: convert zone_pcp_update() to use on_each_cpu()
instead of stop_machine()
On 04/08/2013 03:18 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> (4/8/13 3:49 PM), Cody P Schafer wrote:>
>> If this turns out to be an issue, schedule_on_each_cpu() could be an
>> alternative.
>
> no way. schedule_on_each_cpu() is more problematic and it should be removed
> in the future.
> schedule_on_each_cpu() can only be used when caller task don't have any lock.
> otherwise it may make deadlock.
I wasn't aware of that. Just to be clear, the deadlock you're referring
to isn't the same one refered to in
commit b71ab8c2025caef8db719aa41af0ed735dc543cd
Author: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Date: Tue Jun 29 10:07:14 2010 +0200
workqueue: increase max_active of keventd and kill current_is_keventd()
and
commit 65a64464349883891e21e74af16c05d6e1eeb4e9
Author: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Date: Wed Oct 14 06:22:47 2009 +0200
HWPOISON: Allow schedule_on_each_cpu() from keventd
If you're referencing some other deadlock, could you please provide a
link to the relevant discussion? (I'd really like to add a note to
schedule_on_each_cpu()'s doc comment about it so others can avoid that
pitfall).
--
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