Re: [PATCH V2] smp: Give WARN()ing when callingsmp_call_function_many()/single() in serving irq

[Wang YanQing]

On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 03:50:57PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Chuansheng Liu wrote:
> > There is a real case for softirq DEADLOCK case:
> > 
> > CPUA                            CPUB
> >                                 spin_lock(&spinlock)
> >                                 Any irq coming, call the irq handler
> >                                 irq_exit()
> > spin_lock_irq(&spinlock)
> > <== Blocking here due to
> > CPUB hold it
> >                                   __do_softirq()
> >                                     run_timer_softirq()
> >                                       timer_cb()
> >                                         call smp_call_function_many()
> >                                           send IPI interrupt to CPUA
> >                                             wait_csd()
> > 
> > Then both CPUA and CPUB will be deadlocked here.
> 

Why can't we just use spin_lock_irq instead of spin_lock in CPUB to
prevent this to happen ?

And the according senario for kernel/smp.c is to use raw_spin_lock_irqsave
instead of raw_spin_lock in generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt
to protect the follow one line codes:

        raw_spin_lock(&q->lock);
        list_replace_init(&q->list, &list);
        raw_spin_unlock(&q->lock);

Thanks.
--
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/