Re: [PATCH -rt 5/5] slub: -rt port

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 07/14, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 21:39 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 07/14, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > +static void flush_all(struct kmem_cache *s)
> > > +{
> > > +	int cpu;
> > > +	struct workqueue_struct *wq = flush_slab_workqueue;
> > > +
> > > +	mutex_lock(&flush_slab_mutex);
> > > +	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> > > +		struct slab_work_struct *sw = &per_cpu(slab_works, cpu);
> > > +
> > > +		INIT_WORK(&sw->work, flush_cpu_slab_wq);
> > > +		sw->s = s;
> > > +		queue_work_cpu(wq, &sw->work, cpu);
> > > +	}
> > > +	flush_workqueue(wq);
> > > +	mutex_unlock(&flush_slab_mutex);
> > > +}
> > 
> > I suspect this is not cpu-hotplug safe. flush_slab_mutex doesn't protect
> > from cpu_down(). This means that slab_work_struct could be scheduled on
> > the already dead CPU. flush_workqueue(wq) will hang in that case.
> 
> Yeah, the function I copied this from: schedule_on_each_cpu() has a
> comment to that effect.

Just in case, schedule_on_each_cpu() ptotects cpu_online_map with
preempt_disable(), its problem is quite different.

> Any ideas on how to solve this?

Perhaps slab_cpuup_callback() can take flush_slab_mutex too, in that
case cpu_online_map will be stable under flush_slab_mutex.

Oleg.

-
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/