Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932125AbXAIPEE (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:04:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932130AbXAIPEE (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:04:04 -0500 Received: from mtagate3.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.136]:63984 "EHLO mtagate3.uk.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932125AbXAIPEB (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:04:01 -0500 Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 16:03:51 +0100 From: Heiko Carstens To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri Cc: Benjamin Gilbert , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Gautham shenoy , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Failure to release lock after CPU hot-unplug canceled Message-ID: <20070109150351.GD9563@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> References: <20070108120719.16d4674e.bgilbert@cs.cmu.edu> <20070109121738.GC9563@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20070109122740.GC22080@in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070109122740.GC22080@in.ibm.com> User-Agent: mutt-ng/devel-r804 (Linux) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1489 Lines: 31 On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 05:57:40PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > 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. Ah, nice! Wasn't aware of that. But I still think we should have a CPU_DOWN_FAILED in case CPU_DOWN_PREPARED failed. Also the slab cache code hasn't been changed to make use of the of the new CPU_LOCK_[ACQUIRE|RELEASE] stuff. I'm going to send patches in reply to this mail. - 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/