[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f584fecd-6ca4-4ab0-763d-2ed219009c61@quicinc.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2022 16:29:24 +0530
From: Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>
To: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@...il.com>
CC: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Imran Khan <imran.f.khan@...cle.com>,
<lizefan.x@...edance.com>, <hannes@...xchg.org>,
<tglx@...utronix.de>, <steven.price@....com>,
<peterz@...radead.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Zhao Gongyi <zhaogongyi@...wei.com>,
Zhang Qiao <zhangqiao22@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: Query regarding deadlock involving cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem and
cpu_hotplug_lock
On 8/15/2022 3:09 PM, Michal Koutný wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 05:25:52PM +0800, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@...il.com> wrote:
>> Your means is that the problem should be fixed by [1]+[2]'s revert ?
>
> I understood that was already the combination you had tested.
> You write in [T] that [1] alone causes (another) deadlock and therefore
> the revert of [2] was suggested.
>
>> I just tested the case which reverted the [2]. Need I test with [1] and [2]?
>
> It'd be better (unless you haven't already :-), my reasoning is for the
> [1]+[2] combo.
Feel free to add my
Reported-and-tested-by: Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>
-Mukesh
>
> Thanks,
> Michal
>
> [T] https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAB8ipk_gCLtvEahsp2DvPJf4NxRsM8WCYmmH=yTd7zQE+81_Yg@mail.gmail.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists