[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-kernel
Subject:    Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueues: make get_online_cpus() useable for
From:       Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens () de ! ibm ! com>
Date:       2008-06-30 22:14:17
Message-ID: 20080630221417.GA4727 () osiris ! boeblingen ! de ! ibm ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 03:43:49PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 08:51:31PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > workqueue_cpu_callback(CPU_DEAD) flushes cwq->thread under
> > cpu_maps_update_begin(). This means that the multithreaded workqueues can't
> > use get_online_cpus() due to the possible deadlock, very bad and very old
> > problem.
> > 
> > Introduce the new state, CPU_POST_DEAD, which is called after
> > cpu_hotplug_done() but before cpu_maps_update_done().
> > 
> > Change workqueue_cpu_callback() to use CPU_POST_DEAD instead of CPU_DEAD.
> > This means that create/destroy functions can't rely on get_online_cpus()
> > any longer and should take cpu_add_remove_lock instead.
> 
> Ah, nice!
> 
> > --- 26-rc2/kernel/cpu.c~WQ_4_GET_ONLINE_CPUS	2008-05-18 15:44:18.000000000 +0400
> > +++ 26-rc2/kernel/cpu.c	2008-06-29 20:03:19.000000000 +0400
> > @@ -261,6 +261,11 @@ out_allowed:
> >  	set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, &old_allowed);
> >  out_release:
> >  	cpu_hotplug_done();
> > +	if (!err) {
> 
> This should be (!err && !cpu_online(cpu)), no?
> 
> This is because it might be that __stop_machine_run() succeeded, but
> take_cpu_down() failed and therefore our cpu is still online.

Erk.. it's ok as is since err will contain the return value of take_cpu_down()
after err = kthread_stop(p).
Never mind, just ignore me :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]