[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57AA43CB.5050209@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 13:57:47 -0700
From: Qing Huang <qing.huang@...cle.com>
To: Shamir Rabinovitch <shamir.rabinovitch@...cle.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] device probe: add self triggered delayed work request
On 08/09/2016 03:11 AM, Shamir Rabinovitch wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 05:10:05PM -0700, Qing Huang wrote:
>> Not sure if I understood your scenario. Why there is a deadlock here?
>>
> CPU0 | CPU1
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> driver_deferred_probe_add | driver_deferred_probe_trigger_wrapper
> mutex_lock(&deferred_probe_mutex) | driver_deferred_probe_trigger
> cancel_delayed_work(&deferred_probe_trigger_work) | mutex_lock(&deferred_probe_mutex)
> wait for "driver_deferred_probe_trigger_wrapper" | wait for "deferred_probe_mutex"
>
> is this possible scenario with this patch?
>
> if yes then CPU0 will wait for CPU1 to finish the delayed work whith
> mutex deferred_probe_mutex held while CPU1 will try to finish the
> delayed work and will wait for the same mutex forever.
CPU0 will not wait for "driver_deferred_probe_trigger_wrapper" to
finish, it simply puts the work request onto the queue and returns.
Qing
>
> it seems like dead lock scenario to me.
>
> please say if this scenario is possible.
>
> BR, Shamir Rabinovitch
Powered by blists - more mailing lists