[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140514112048.GJ13658@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 13:20:48 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
Michael wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"ktkhai@...allels.com" <ktkhai@...allels.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: sched: hang in migrate_swap
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:26:02PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> so we serialize stop_cpus_work() vs stop_two_cpus() with an l/g lock.
>
> Ah, but stop_cpus_work() only holds the global lock over queueing, it
> doesn't wait for completion, that might indeed cause a problem.
Hmm, is this so? If the stop_cpus_work() queueing is complete, the
stop_two_cpus() queueing must always happen _after_ it.
Therefore the stopper threads should also observe them in that order,
right? /me goes check..
Hmm, cpu_stop_queue_work() does list_add_tail(), does that make it a
LIFO?
Bah, now I've confused myself again.
> Also, since its two different cpus queueing, the ordered queue doesn't
> really matter, you can still interleave the all and two sets and get
> into this state.
Anyway, before I stared getting self doubts, I wrote the below, now I'm
not sure its at all relevant but here goes.
---
Yeah, sorry for not also providing a solution, extending the lg_global
lock over the entire sqeuence won't work for it will disable preemption,
which means we need something a little smarter.
Now, I still have the hotplug lock rewrite laying about, now Linus had
an opinion on that, but we could adapt percpu-rwsem.c to use the same
logic.
At that point, I think it would be possible to use the percpu-rwsem for
this, use the write lock for the global stop all thing, and the read
side for the two-cpu stopper.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1574737
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists