Re: [PATCH v3] CPU hotplug: active_writer not woken up in some cases - deadlock

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

On 12/10, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> > Why active_writer should see .puts_pending != 0 if this is called
> > right after cpu_hotplug_begin() takes cpu_hotplug.lock but before
> > it sets TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE?
>
> get_online_cpus() increased the refcount.
> put_online_cpus() will increment puts_pending and trigger a wake up (if the
> lock is alread taken - might be by cpu_hotplug_begin() or by some other
> get_online_cpus()).
>
> So refcount == 1, puts_pending == 1
>
> cpu_hotplug_begin() gets the lock and sees refcount == 1 and puts_pending == 0
> or puts_pending == 1 (race with put_online_cpus()).
>
> If that answers your question :)

Sorry for confusion ;)

I meant that without mb() cpu_hotplug_begin() can miss puts_pending != 0,
so it needs set_current_state() before atomic_read().

But this doesn't matter, your v4 uses wake_up/prepare_to_wait.

> > IOW,
> > 
> > >  void cpu_hotplug_begin(void)
> > >  {
> > > +	spin_lock(&cpu_hotplug.awr_lock);
> > >  	cpu_hotplug.active_writer = current;
> > > +	spin_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.awr_lock);
> > >  
> > >  	cpuhp_lock_acquire();
> > >  	for (;;) {
> > >  		mutex_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> > > +		__set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> > 
> > don't we need set_current_state() here ?
> 
> Hm, good question, this was only a move of existing code. But I thing the
> checked variant would be better.
> 
> > 
> > Oleg.
> > 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> David
>