From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1753798AbZFABIA@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753798AbZFABIA (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sun, 31 May 2009 21:08:00 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752227AbZFABHw
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Sun, 31 May 2009 21:07:52 -0400
Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:60525 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752187AbZFABHv (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 31 May 2009 21:07:51 -0400
Message-ID: <4A232925.1010706@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 09:04:37 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, rusty@rustcorp.com.au,
       mingo@elte.hu, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
       Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpuhotplug: use rw_semaphore for cpu_hotplug
References: <4A1F9CEA.1070705@cn.fujitsu.com> <20090529132328.99e7cae3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090529210748.GA13449@redhat.com> <20090529211734.GA13868@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090529211734.GA13868@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 05/29, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> On 05/29, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 16:29:30 +0800
>>> Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Current get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus() re-implement
>>>> a rw_semaphore,
>>>> so it is converted to a real rw_semaphore in this fix.
>>>> It simplifies codes, and is good for read.
>>>>  static struct {
>>>> -	struct task_struct *active_writer;
>>>> -	struct mutex lock; /* Synchronizes accesses to refcount, */
>>>>  	/*
>>>> -	 * Also blocks the new readers during
>>>> -	 * an ongoing cpu hotplug operation.
>>>> +	 * active_writer makes get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus() are allowd
>>>> +	 * to be nested in cpu_hotplug_begin()/cpu_hotplug_done().
>>>> +	 *
>>>> +	 * Thus, get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus() can be called in
>>>> +	 * CPU notifiers.
>>>>  	 */
>>>> -	int refcount;
>>>> +	struct task_struct *active_writer;
>>>> +	struct rw_semaphore rwlock;
>>>>  } cpu_hotplug;
>> But, afaics, down_write() blocks new readers.
>>
>> This means that with this patch get_online_cpus() is not recursive, no?
> 
> And please note that the current code drops mutex when get_online_cpus()
> succeeds. With your patch (if I read it correctly) the code under get_()
> runs with cpu_hotplug->rwlock held for reading. I'm afraid this creates
> the new possibilities for deadlocks.
> 

The current code drops mutex when get_online_cpus() succeeds, BUT it
increases the counter as what down_read() does. I think the current
code has the same deadlocks which the down_read()-implement has.

Since the current code use mutex + counter to implement a "down_read()",
why not use the down_read() directly?
And down_read() can be checked by lockdep.

Lai.