[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130411203053.GC25515@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:30:53 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Yan Burman <yanb@...lanox.com>,
Jack Morgenstein <jackm@....mellanox.co.il>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH repost for-3.9] pci: avoid work_on_cpu for nested SRIOV
probes
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:20:05PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:17:17PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Hmm no, there's a real deadlock here: you are
> > trying to flush from work1 from within work2 running
> > on same workqueue. work2 can't event start running.
> > The problem is not annotation.
>
> No, that has changed years ago with introduction of cmwq. System
> workqueues are now expected to have high enough maximum concurrency to
> not cause deadlock as long as memory for worker creation is available,
> so as long as your work item doesn't directly sit in the memory
> reclaim path, it's safe to flush a different work item running on the
> same workqueue with sufficiently high max_active.
>
> Thanks.
Okay, so you are saying it's a false-positive?
Want to send a patch so Or can try it out?
> --
> tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists