Re: [PATCH -mm resend] cpuhotplug: introduce try_get_online_cpus()take 3

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 04:41:42PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 
> > I still think we should really avoid having to do this.  trylocks are
> > nasty things.
> > 
> > Looking at the above, one would think that a correct fix would be to fix
> > the bug in "thread 2": take the locks in the correct order?  As
> > try_get_online_cpus() doesn't actually have any callers, it's hard to
> > take that thought any further.
> 
> Sometimes, we can not reorder the locks' order.
> try_get_online_cpus() is really needless when no one uses it.
> 
> Paul's expedited RCU V7 may need it:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/22/332
> 
> So this patch can be omitted when Paul does not use it.
> It's totally OK for me.

Although my patch does not need it in and of itself, if someone were
to hold a kernel mutex across synchronize_sched_expedited(), and also
acquire that same kernel mutex in a hotplug notifier, the deadlock that
Lai calls out would occur.

Even if no one uses synchronize_sched_expedited() in this manner, I feel
that it is good to explore the possibility of dealing with it.  As
Andrew Morton pointed out, CPU-hotplug locking is touchy, so on-the-fly
fixes are to be avoided if possible.

							Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/