On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:36:32 +0200
Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 14:10 +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > git commit 9b41ea7289a589993d3daabc61f999b4147872c4 causes the lockdep
> > message below on cpu hotplug (git kernel of today).
> >
> > We have:
> >
> > cpu_down (takes cpu_add_remove_lock)
> > [CPU_DOWN_PREPARE]
> > blocking_notifier_call_chain (takes (cpu_chain).rwsem)
> > workqueue_cpu_callback (takes workqueue_mutex)
> > blocking_notifier_call_chain (releases (cpu_chain).rwsem)
> > [CPU_DEAD]
> > blocking_notifier_call_chain (takes (cpu_chain).rwsem)
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > -> reverse locking order, since we still hold workqueue_mutex.
> >
> > But since all of this is protected by the cpu_add_remove_lock this looks
> > legal. Well, at least it's safe as long as no other cpu callback function
> > does anything that will take the workqueue_mutex as well.
>
> so you're saying this locking is entirely redundant ? ;-)
Nope, not all code paths which access the data which is protected by
workqueue_mutex take cpu_add_remove_lock.
Simplifying it, we have:
blocking_notifier_call_chain()
->down_read(cpu_chain.rwsem)
->workqueue_cpu_callback()
->mutex_lock(workqueue_mutex)
->up_read(cpu_chain.rwsem)
blocking_notifier_call_chain()
->down_read(cpu_chain.rwsem)
->workqueue_cpu_callback()
->mutex_unlock(workqueue_mutex)
->up_read(cpu_chain.rwsem)
Which is OK as long as nobody runs cpu_up() or cpu_down() while holding
workqueue_mutex.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
