From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com>
Cc: Benjamin Gilbert <bgilbert@cs.cmu.edu>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Gautham shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: Failure to release lock after CPU hot-unplug canceled
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 16:03:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070109150351.GD9563@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070109122740.GC22080@in.ibm.com>
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 05:57:40PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 01:17:38PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > missing in kernel cpu.c in _cpu_down() in case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE
> > returned with NOTIFY_BAD. However... this reveals that there is just a
> > more fundamental problem.
> >
> > The workqueue code grabs a lock on CPU_[UP|DOWN]_PREPARE and releases it
> > again on CPU_DOWN_FAILED/CPU_UP_CANCELED. If something in the callchain
> > returns NOTIFY_BAD the rest of the entries in the callchain won't be
> > called anymore. But DOWN_FAILED/UP_CANCELED will be called for every
> > entry.
> > So we might even end up with a mutex_unlock(&workqueue_mutex) even if
> > mutex_lock(&workqueue_mutex) hasn't been called...
>
> This is a known problem. Gautham had sent out patches to address them
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/11/14/93
>
> Looks like they are in latest mm tree. Perhaps the testcase should be
> retried against latest mm.
Ah, nice! Wasn't aware of that. But I still think we should have a
CPU_DOWN_FAILED in case CPU_DOWN_PREPARED failed.
Also the slab cache code hasn't been changed to make use of the of the
new CPU_LOCK_[ACQUIRE|RELEASE] stuff. I'm going to send patches in reply
to this mail.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-01-09 15:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-01-08 17:07 Failure to release lock after CPU hot-unplug canceled Benjamin Gilbert
2007-01-09 12:17 ` Heiko Carstens
2007-01-09 12:27 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2007-01-09 15:03 ` Heiko Carstens [this message]
2007-01-09 15:05 ` [patch -mm] call cpu_chain with CPU_DOWN_FAILED if CPU_DOWN_PREPARE failed Heiko Carstens
2007-01-09 15:06 ` [patch -mm] slab: use CPU_LOCK_[ACQUIRE|RELEASE] Heiko Carstens
2007-01-10 18:20 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-01-11 2:30 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2007-01-09 16:34 ` Failure to release lock after CPU hot-unplug canceled Benjamin Gilbert
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20070109150351.GD9563@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com \
--to=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=bgilbert@cs.cmu.edu \
--cc=ego@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=vatsa@in.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.