Re: CPUFREQ-CPUHOTPLUG: Possible circular locking dependency

Ingo Molnar
2006-11-30T11:47:00Z

* Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:

> > This would be done totally serialized and while holding the hotplug
> > lock, so no CPU could go away or arrive while this operation is
> > going on.
>
> You said "the hotplug lock". That is the problem.

maybe i'm too dense today but i still dont see the fundamental problem.

Even with complex inter-subsystem interactions, hotplugging could be
effectively and scalably controlled via a self-recursive per-CPU mutex,
and a pointer to it embedded in task_struct:

struct task_struct {
...
int hotplug_depth;
struct mutex *hotplug_lock;
}
...

DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct mutex, hotplug_lock);

void cpu_hotplug_lock(void)
{
int cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
/*
* Interrupts/softirqs are hotplug-safe:
*/
if (in_interrupt())
return;
if (current->hotplug_depth++)
return;
current->hotplug_lock = &per_cpu(hotplug_lock, cpu);
mutex_lock(current->hotplug_lock);
}

void cpu_hotplug_unlock(void)
{
int cpu;

if (in_interrupt())
return;
if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(!current->hotplug_depth))
return;
if (--current->hotplug_depth)
return;

mutex_unlock(current->hotplug_lock);
current->hotplug_lock = NULL;
}

...

void do_exit(void)
{
...
DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(current->hotplug_depth);
...
}
...
copy_process(void)
{
...
p->hotplug_depth = 0;
p->hotplug_lock = NULL;
...
}

50 lines of code at most. The only rule is to not use cpu_hotplug_lock()
in process-context non-preemptible code [interrupt contexts are
automatically ignored]. What am i missing?

Ingo