From: Florian Mickler <florian@mickler.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@amd64.org>
Cc: Tobias Karnat <tobias.karnat@googlemail.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
"linux-edac@vger.kernel.org" <linux-edac@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: edac_core: crashes on shutdown
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 20:54:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101202205405.7ff38b7f@schatten.dmk.lab> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101202185123.GI27263@aftab>
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 19:51:23 +0100
Borislav Petkov <bp@amd64.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 01:14:12PM -0500, Florian Mickler wrote:
> > Yes. That should work. Once we stopped the workqueue and removed it
> > from the global list, do we actually need to set it to OP_OFFLINE?
>
> I think yes, because we seem to protect ourselves in the actual
> edac_mc_workq_function() on exit, if we overlap the work items
> cancellation with the execution of the delayed work at the same time on
> a different cpu. Besides, it is a single assignment and it does cost us
> almost nothing.
true. I wonder if the flush workqueue waits for the work-function
to finish?
>
> > Also 00740c585 did fix a hang in edac_mc.c... could this also happen
> > in the edac_device_del_device/edac_pci_del_device functions?
>
> Nope, because there we don't check ->op_state when we cancel the work
> items in the respective _teardown() functions - we simply cancel them
> unconditionally.
>
But shouldn't we check ->op_state for those as well? Why don't we hang
for those functions in similar cases as your original patch fixed?
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-12-02 19:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-12-01 11:01 edac_core: crashes on shutdown Tobias Karnat
2010-12-01 12:39 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-12-01 13:24 ` Tobias Karnat
2010-12-01 14:33 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-12-01 17:46 ` Tobias Karnat
2010-12-01 19:35 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-12-02 9:03 ` Tobias Karnat
2010-12-02 14:51 ` Florian Mickler
2010-12-02 14:52 ` Florian Mickler
2010-12-02 15:21 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-12-02 16:21 ` Tobias Karnat
2010-12-02 17:02 ` Florian Mickler
2010-12-02 17:07 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-12-02 17:06 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-12-02 18:05 ` Tobias Karnat
2010-12-02 18:37 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-12-02 22:34 ` Tobias Karnat
2010-12-03 11:58 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-12-03 21:23 ` Doug Thompson
2010-12-02 18:14 ` Florian Mickler
2010-12-02 18:51 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-12-02 19:54 ` Florian Mickler [this message]
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=20101202205405.7ff38b7f@schatten.dmk.lab \
--to=florian@mickler.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=bp@amd64.org \
--cc=linux-edac@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tobias.karnat@googlemail.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox