lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 14:52:26 +0200 From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Subject: Re: [patch V2 1/2] mm: swap: Provide lru_add_drain_all_cpuslocked() On Tue 04-07-17 14:48:56, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 4 Jul 2017, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 04-07-17 11:32:33, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > The rework of the cpu hotplug locking unearthed potential deadlocks with > > > the memory hotplug locking code. > > > > > > The solution for these is to rework the memory hotplug locking code as well > > > and take the cpu hotplug lock before the memory hotplug lock in > > > mem_hotplug_begin(), but this will cause a recursive locking of the cpu > > > hotplug lock when the memory hotplug code calls lru_add_drain_all(). > > > > > > Split out the inner workings of lru_add_drain_all() into > > > lru_add_drain_all_cpuslocked() so this function can be invoked from the > > > memory hotplug code with the cpu hotplug lock held. > > > > You have added callers in the later patch in the series AFAICS which > > is OK but I think it would be better to have them in this patch > > already. Nothing earth shattering (maybe a rebase artifact). > > The requirement for changing that comes with the extra hotplug locking in > mem_hotplug_begin(). That is required to establish the proper lock order > and then causes the recursive locking in the next patch. Adding the caller > here would be wrong, because then lru_add_drain_all_cpuslocked() would be > called unprotected. Hens and eggs as usual :) Yeah, you are right. My bad I should have noticed that. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists