[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1702090759370.22559@east.gentwo.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 08:00:57 -0600 (CST)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: mm: deadlock between get_online_cpus/pcpu_alloc
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> And how does that solve the problem at hand? Not at all:
>
> CPU 0 CPU 1
>
> for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> ==> cpu = 1
> stop_machine()
> set_cpu_online(1, false)
> queue_work(cpu1)
>
> Thanks,
Well thats not how I remember stop_machine does work. Doesnt it stop the
processing on all cpus otherwise its not a real usable stop.
The stop_machine would need to ensure that all cpus cease processing
before proceeding.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists