[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 15:47:12 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Wang YanQing <udknight@...il.com>
cc: Chuansheng Liu <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>, mingo@...nel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, jbeulich@...e.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mina86@...a86.org, srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jun.zhang@...el.com,
fengguang.wu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] smp: Give WARN()ing when calling smp_call_function_many()/single()
in serving irq
On Sun, 7 Jul 2013, Wang YanQing wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 04:37:14PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Hmm, even there it matters, because of the following scenario:
> >
> > CPU 0
> > smp_call_function_single(CPU 1)
> > csd_lock(CPU 1)
>
> No, smpl_call_function_single(CPU 1)
> will csd_lock(CPU 0), not csd_lock(CPU 1)
>
> > irq_enter()
> > irq_exit()
> > __do_softirq()
> > smp_call_function_many()
> > setup csd (CPU 1)
> > csd_lock(CPU 1) ==> CPU 0 deadlocked itself.
> >
>
> maybe below is the scenario:
> irq_enter()
> irq_exit()
> __do_softirq()
> smp_call_function_single()
> setup csd (CPU 1)
> csd_lock(CPU 0) ==> CPU 0 deadlocked itself.
Right, I fatfingered that :)
--
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