Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 17:57:40 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com>
To: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Benjamin Gilbert <bgilbert@cs.cmu.edu>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Gautham shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: Failure to release lock after CPU hot-unplug canceled
Message-ID: <20070109122740.GC22080@in.ibm.com>
Reply-To: vatsa@in.ibm.com
References: <20070108120719.16d4674e.bgilbert@cs.cmu.edu> <20070109121738.GC9563@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20070109121738.GC9563@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1128
Lines: 28

On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 01:17:38PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> missing in kernel cpu.c in _cpu_down() in case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE
> returned with NOTIFY_BAD. However... this reveals that there is just a
> more fundamental problem.
> 
> The workqueue code grabs a lock on CPU_[UP|DOWN]_PREPARE and releases it
> again on CPU_DOWN_FAILED/CPU_UP_CANCELED. If something in the callchain
> returns NOTIFY_BAD the rest of the entries in the callchain won't be
> called anymore. But DOWN_FAILED/UP_CANCELED will be called for every
> entry.
> So we might even end up with a mutex_unlock(&workqueue_mutex) even if
> mutex_lock(&workqueue_mutex) hasn't been called...

This is a known problem. Gautham had sent out patches to address them

http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/11/14/93

Looks like they are in latest mm tree. Perhaps the testcase should be
retried against latest mm.

-- 
Regards,
vatsa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/