[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140424143208.GB14460@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:32:08 -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 v5 1/2] Use lock_device_hotplug() in
cpu_probe_store() and cpu_release_store()
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 04:37:23PM +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-04-23 at 10:39 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> After thinking it harder, I still couldn't see ABBA here ...
>
> the active protection taken here is for "probe/release" which will not
> be waited for removing something like "online" under cpu#? Or my
> assumption that s_active for different files are different locks are
> completely wrong? Or I missed something else?
I'm probably confused about the locking. I was thinking a scenario
like the following.
A. CPU on/offline
grabs s_active protection of online node
grabs cpu subsys mutex
perform on/offline
releases cpu subsys mutex
releases s_active protection of online node
B. CPU release
grabs s_active protection of release node
grabs cpu subsys mutex
performs removal of the CPU
removes the online node
releases cpu subsys mutex
releases s_active protection of release node
A nests cpu subsys mutex under s_active of the online node. B nests
s_active of the online node under the cpu subsys mutex. What am I
missing?
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