On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 23:08:21 +1000
Neil Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wednesday October 11, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > > blocking_notifier_call_chain is
> > > > down_read(&nh->rwsem);
> > > > ret = notifier_call_chain(&nh->head, val, v);
> > > > up_read(&nh->rwsem);
> > > >
> > > > and so holds ->rwsem while calling the callback.
> > > > So the locking sequence ends up as:
> > > >
> > > > down_read(&cpu_chain.rwsem);
> > > > mutex_lock(&workqueue_mutex);
> > > > up_read(&cpu_chain.rwsem);
> > > >
> > > > down_read(&cpu_chain.rwsem);
> > > > mutex_unlock(&workqueue_mutex);
> > > > up_read(&workqueue_mutex);
> > > >
> > > > and lockdep doesn't seem to like this. It sees workqueue_mutex
> > > > claimed while cpu_chain.rwsem is held. and then it sees
> > > > cpu_chain.rwsem claimed while workqueue_mutex is held, which looks a
> > > > bit like a class ABBA deadlock.
> > > > Of course because it is a 'down_read' rather than a 'down', it isn't
> > > > really a dead lock.
> >
> > ok can you explain to me why "down_read" doesn't make this a deadlock
> > while "down" would make it a deadlock? I have trouble following your
> > reasoning.....
> >
> > (remember that rwsems are strictly fair)
>
> I see your point.
>
> While thread A holds just workqueue_mutex,
> thread B takes cpu_chain.rwsem for read then tries to take
> workqueue_mutex and blocks.
> Now thread C tries to get a write lock on cpu_chain.rwsem and blocks
> as well.
> Finally thread A moves on to try to get a read lock on cpu_chain.rwsem
> and this blocks because thread C is waiting for a write lock.
>
> So A waits on B and C, C waits on B, B waits on A.
> Deadlock.
Except the entire operation is serialised by the the two top-level callers
(cpu_up() and cpu_down()) taking mutex_lock(&cpu_add_remove_lock). Can
lockdep be taught about that?
> Who do we blame this on? Are you still the cpu-hot-plug guy Rusty?
It's fun blaming Rusty for stuff, but he can dodge this one with
more-than-usual ease, I'm afraid.
-
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]
