Re: [PATCH 1/3] stop_machine: kill __stop_machine()

[Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>]

On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 10:37 -0700, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 05:12 -0700, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 19:06 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Please have a look at: 
> > 
> > ---
> > commit d91309f69b7bdb64aeb30106fde8d18c5dd354b5
> > Author: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > Date:   Fri Feb 11 22:07:46 2011 +0100
> > 
> >     x86: Fix text_poke_smp_batch() deadlock
> >     
> >     Fix this deadlock - we are already holding the mutex:
> >     
> ...
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c b/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
> > index 1236085..7038b95 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
> > @@ -671,7 +671,7 @@ void __kprobes text_poke_smp_batch(struct text_poke_param *params, int n)
> >  
> >  	atomic_set(&stop_machine_first, 1);
> >  	wrote_text = 0;
> > -	stop_machine(stop_machine_text_poke, (void *)&tpp, NULL);
> > +	__stop_machine(stop_machine_text_poke, (void *)&tpp, NULL);
> >  }
> >  
> >  #if defined(CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE) || defined(HAVE_JUMP_LABEL)
> > 
> 
> Peter, So it looks like we are allowing a new cpu to come online in
> parallel, while we poke the text? Isn't it a problem? What am I missing?

the caller already did get_online_cpus(), 

do_optimize_kprobes()
  get_online_cpus()
  arch_optimize_kprobes()
    text_poke_smp_batch()
  put_online_cpus()