Re: Deadlock between cpu_hotplug_begin and cpu_add_remove_lock

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

On 01/23/2014 10:32 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 01/23, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>
>> On 01/23/2014 12:48 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> On 01/22, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Wait a min, that _will_ actually work for all cases because I have provided
>>>> an option to invoke _any_ arbitrary function as the "setup" routine.
>>>
>>> And probably the generic solution makes sense. I am not sure I actually
>>> understand the semantics of register_allcpu_notifier(), but the problem
>>> it tries to solve looks clear/valid.
>>>
>>
>> Thank you. But I was wondering whether its usage is a bit unintuitive/
>> convoluted. So I was contemplating between going with that solution or the
>> below one, where the call-sites are expected to do:
>>
>> cpu_maps_update_begin();
>> for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
>> 	...
>> }
>> __register_cpu_notifier(); //use the __reg() variant, which doesn't take locks
>> cpu_maps_update_done();
>>
>> Of course, that requires exporting the functions cpu_maps_update_begin/done(),
>> but this latter form of callback registration might look more natural.
> 
> Yes, I thought about this too ;)
> 
>> But for some of the other call-sites, we might have to use one
>> of the solutions mentioned above.
> 
> Yes, yes, sure, I agree.
> 
> I suggested this change only for discussion, for the case we need
> an "urgent" fix without changes outside of drivers/md/. The generic
> solution is better.
> 

Ok :) But your fix for drivers/md/ also makes the code look much neater.
So I'll include your patch in my series and convert the rest of the call-
sites using the generic solution.

Thank you!

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat

--
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/