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

[Wang YanQing]

On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 04:37:14PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Hmm, even there it matters, because of the following scenario:
> 
> CPU 0
> smp_call_function_single(CPU 1)
>     csd_lock(CPU 1)

No, smpl_call_function_single(CPU 1)
will csd_lock(CPU 0), not csd_lock(CPU 1)

>     irq_enter()
>     irq_exit()
>     __do_softirq()
>     smp_call_function_many()
>       setup csd (CPU 1)
>         csd_lock(CPU 1) ==> CPU 0 deadlocked itself.
> 

maybe below is the scenario:
     irq_enter()
     irq_exit()
     __do_softirq()
     smp_call_function_single()
       setup csd (CPU 1)
         csd_lock(CPU 0) ==> CPU 0 deadlocked itself.
 

> And this is even more likely to happen than the lock issue.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx
> --
> 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/
--
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/