[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150623100932.GB3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 12:09:32 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, tj@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, der.herr@...r.at, dave@...olabs.net,
riel@...hat.com, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 12/13] stop_machine: Remove lglock
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:21:52AM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Suppose that stop_two_cpus(cpu1 => 0, cpu2 => 1) races with stop_machine().
>
> - stop_machine takes the lock on CPU 0, adds the work
> and drops the lock
>
> - cpu_stop_queue_work() queues both works
cpu_stop_queue_work() only ever queues _1_ work.
> - stop_machine takes the lock on CPU 1, etc
>
> In this case both CPU 0 and 1 will run multi_cpu_stop() but they will
> use different multi_stop_data's, so they will wait for each other
> forever?
So what you're saying is:
queue_stop_cpus_work() stop_two_cpus()
cpu_stop_queue_work(0,..);
spin_lock(0);
spin_lock(1);
__cpu_stop_queue_work(0,..);
__cpu_stop_queue_work(1,..);
spin_unlock(1);
spin_unlock(0);
cpu_stop_queue_work(1,..);
Indeed, I don't know what I was thinking...
We can of course slap a percpu-rwsem in, but I wonder if there's
anything smarter we can do here.
--
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