[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0izmv8CycKd0hjEkSBUmPeRmWWMUMgfMHkXK-0uDJFPaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 22:08:25 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
linux hotplug mailing <linux-hotplug@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Possible deadlock related to CPU hotplug and kernfs
Hi Tejun,
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> Hello, Rafael.
>
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:58:16AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> So acpi_device_hotplug() calls lock_device_hotplug() which simply
>> acquires device_hotplug_lock. It is held throughout the entire
>> hot-add/hot-remove code path.
>>
>> Witing anything to /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpux/online goes through
>> online_store() in drivers/base/core.c and that does
>> lock_device_hotplug_sysfs() which then attempts to acquire
>> device_hotplug_lock using mutex_trylock(). And it only calls
>> either device_online() or device_offline() if it ends up with the
>> lock held.
>>
>> Quite frankly, I don't see how these particular two code paths can
>> deadlock in any way.
>>
>> So either a third code path is involved which is not executed
>> under device_hotplug_lock, or lockdep needs to be told to actually
>> take device_hotplug_lock into account in this case IMO.
>
> Hmm... all sysfs rw functions are protected from removal. ie. by
> default, removal of a sysfs file drains in-flight rw operations, so
> the hot plug path grabs a lock and then tries to remove a file and
> writing to the online file makes the file's write method to try to
> grab the same lock. It deadlocks if the hotunplug path already has
> the lock and trying to drain the online file for removal.
My point is that you cannot get into that situation. If hotplug
already holds device_hotplug_lock, the write to "online" will end up
doing restart_syscall().
If the "online" code path is holding the lock, hotplug cannot acquire
it and cannot proceed.
Am I missing anything?
Thanks,
Rafael
--
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