Re: [PATCH] fix-flush_workqueue-vs-cpu_dead-race-update

[Srivatsa Vaddagiri]

On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 08:34:16PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> I suspect this can't help either.
> 
> The problem is that flush_workqueue() may be called while cpu hotplug event
> in progress and CPU_DEAD waits for kthread_stop(), so we have the same dead
> lock if work->func() does flush_workqueue(). This means that Andrew's change
> to use preempt_disable() is good and anyway needed.

Well ..a lock_cpu_hotplug() in run_workqueue() and support for recursive
calls to lock_cpu_hotplug() by the same thread will avoid the problem
you mention. This will need changes to task_struct to track the
recursion depth. Alternately this can be supported w/o changes to
task_struct by 'biasing' readers over writers as I believe Gautham's 
patches [1] do.

1. http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/10/26/65

-- 
Regards,
vatsa



-
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/