[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1507141647531.16182@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 16:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: Marcin Ślusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: cpu_hotplug vs oom_notify_list: possible circular locking
dependency detected
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> commit a1992f2f3b8e174d740a8f764d0d51344bed2eed
> Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Date: Tue Jul 14 16:24:14 2015 -0700
>
> rcu: Don't disable CPU hotplug during OOM notifiers
>
> RCU's rcu_oom_notify() disables CPU hotplug in order to stabilize the
> list of online CPUs, which it traverses. However, this is completely
> pointless because smp_call_function_single() will quietly fail if invoked
> on an offline CPU. Because the count of requests is incremented in the
> rcu_oom_notify_cpu() function that is remotely invoked, everything works
> nicely even in the face of concurrent CPU-hotplug operations.
>
> Furthermore, in recent kernels, invoking get_online_cpus() from an OOM
> notifier can result in deadlock. This commit therefore removes the
> call to get_online_cpus() and put_online_cpus() from rcu_oom_notify().
>
> Reported-by: Marcin Ślusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com>
> Reported-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists