Re: Lockdep complains about commit 1331e7a1bb ("rcu: Remove _rcu_barrier()dependency on __stop_machine()")

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

On 10/03/2012 03:47 AM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> 
>> I don't see how this circular locking dependency can occur.. If you are using SLUB,
>> kmem_cache_destroy() releases slab_mutex before it calls rcu_barrier(). If you are
>> using SLAB, kmem_cache_destroy() wraps its whole operation inside get/put_online_cpus(),
>> which means, it cannot run concurrently with a hotplug operation such as cpu_up(). So, I'm
>> rather puzzled at this lockdep splat..
> 
> I am using SLAB here.
> 
> The scenario I think is very well possible:
> 
> 
> 	CPU 0				CPU 1
> 	kmem_cache_destroy()

What about the get_online_cpus() right here at CPU0 before
calling mutex_lock(slab_mutex)? How can the cpu_up() proceed
on CPU1?? I still don't get it... :(

(kmem_cache_destroy() uses get/put_online_cpus() around acquiring
and releasing slab_mutex).

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat

> 	mutex_lock(slab_mutex)
> 	 				_cpu_up()
> 					cpu_hotplug_begin()
> 					mutex_lock(cpu_hotplug.lock)
> 	rcu_barrier()
> 	_rcu_barrier()
> 	get_online_cpus()
> 	mutex_lock(cpu_hotplug.lock)
> 	 (blocks, CPU 1 has the mutex)
> 					__cpu_notify()
> 					mutex_lock(slab_mutex)
> 
> Deadlock.
> 
> Right?
> 


--
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/