[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1410222255540.17725@pobox.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 22:57:25 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...aro.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: lockdep splat in CPU hotplug
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> rcu: More on deadlock between CPU hotplug and expedited grace periods
>
> Commit dd56af42bd82 (rcu: Eliminate deadlock between CPU hotplug and
> expedited grace periods) was incomplete. Although it did eliminate
> deadlocks involving synchronize_sched_expedited()'s acquisition of
> cpu_hotplug.lock via get_online_cpus(), it did nothing about the similar
> deadlock involving acquisition of this same lock via put_online_cpus().
> This deadlock became apparent with testing involving hibernation.
>
> This commit therefore changes put_online_cpus() acquisition of this lock
> to be conditional, and increments a new cpu_hotplug.puts_pending field
> in case of acquisition failure. Then cpu_hotplug_begin() checks for this
> new field being non-zero, and applies any changes to cpu_hotplug.refcount.
>
Yes, this works. FWIW, please feel free to add
Reported-and-tested-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
once merging it.
Why lockdep produced such an incomplete stacktrace still remains
unexplained.
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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