Re: [PATCH] cpusets: fix deadlock with cpu_down()->cpuset_lock()

Oleg Nesterov
2009-07-30T17:54:46Z

On 07/30, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 07/29, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >> I strongly believe the bug does exist, but this patch needs the review
> >> from maintainers.
> >
> > Yes...
> >
> >> IOW, with this patch migration_call(CPU_DEAD) runs without callback_mutex,
> >> but kernel/cpuset.c always takes get_online_cpus() before callback_mutex.
> >
> > Oh. I'm afraid this is not an option.
> >
> > callback_mutex should nest under cgroup_mutex, but cpu hotplu pathes
> > take cgroup_mutex under cpu_hotplug->lock. Lockdep won't be happy.
> >
> > Oleg.
> >
>
> We have made great effort to remove get_online_cpus() from cgroup_mutex
> critical region.

Agreed.

> We can migrate the owner of callback_mutex in migration_call(CPU_DEAD)
> at first(and then take callback_mutex and migrate others).

Not sure I understand how can we do this. Even if we know the owner
of callback_mutex, if we can migrate it safely without callback_mutex
why we can't migrate other tasks without this lock?

In any case this doesn't look like a clean solution, imho. But I hardly
understand what cpuset is, can't suggest something clever.

I don't really understand why guarantee_online_cpus() needs this mutex,
and I don' understand why it have to check cs->parent.

update_cpumask() doesn't allow to set ->cpus_allowed which does not
intersect with cpu_online_mask (unless cs is empty). This means that
guarantee_online_cpus()->cpumask_intersects() == T is only possible
when we are called from cpu_down() path, right? But can't we just
return cpu_online_mask in this case? I mean,

static void guarantee_online_cpus(const struct cpuset *cs,
struct cpumask *pmask)
{
if (cpumask_intersects(cs->cpus_allowed, cpu_online_mask))
cpumask_and(pmask, cs->cpus_allowed, cpu_online_mask);
else
/* !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
* cpuset_track_online_cpus(CPU_DEAD)->scan_for_empty_cpusets()
* will fix this.
*/
cpumask_copy(pmask, cpu_online_mask);
}

Most probably I missed something, never looked in cpuset.c before.

Oleg.