[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140416151749.GE1257@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 11:17:49 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Li Zhong <zhong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, toshi.kani@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] Use kernfs_break_active_protection() for device
online store callbacks
Hello,
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 09:41:40AM +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
> > If so, that is
> > an actually possible deadlock, no?
>
> Yes, but it seems to me that it is solved in commit 5e33bc41, which uses
> lock_device_hotplug_sysfs() to return a restart syscall error if not
> able to try lock the device_hotplug_lock. That also requires the device
> removing code path to take the device_hotplug_lock.
But that patch only takes out device_hotplug_lock out of the
dependency graph and does nothing for cpu_add_remove_lock. It seems
to be that there still is a deadlock condition involving s_active and
cpu_add_remove_lock. Am I missing something here?
Now that kernfs has a proper mechanism to deal with it, wouldn't it
make more sense to replace 5e33bc41 with prper s_active protection
breaking?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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