Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756397AbYJXLS4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Oct 2008 07:18:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752230AbYJXLSr (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Oct 2008 07:18:47 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:60857 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751793AbYJXLSq (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Oct 2008 07:18:46 -0400 From: Rusty Russell To: Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] work_on_cpu: helper for doing task on a CPU. Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:18:50 +1100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: Gautham R Shenoy , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, travis@sgi.com, Ingo Molnar References: <20081023005751.53973DDEFE@ozlabs.org> <20081024072147.GA5000@in.ibm.com> <20081024102957.GC4583@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20081024102957.GC4583@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200810242218.50370.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1442 Lines: 36 On Friday 24 October 2008 21:29:57 Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 10/24, Gautham R Shenoy wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 02:04:35PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > I think we should BUG_ON(per_cpu(cpu_state, cpuid) != CPU_DEAD) to > > > ensure we never use work_on_cpu in the hotplug cpu path. Then we use > > > smp_call_function() for that hard intel_cacheinfo case. Finally, we > > > fix the cpu hotplug path to use schedule_work_on() itself rather than > > > playing games with cpumask. > > > > > > If you agree, I'll spin the patches... > > > > How about the following? > > > > We go with this method, but instead of piggybacking on > > the generic kevents workqueue, we create our own on_each_cpu_wq, for this > > purpose. > > Gautham, Rusty, I am a bit lost on this discussion... > > Why should we care about this deadlock? Just do not use work_on_cpu() from > the hotplug cpu path, that is all. No, I agree with you (Oleg). Gautham's proposal would work, but at the cost of yet another thread per CPU :( Since we know how to handle the one problematic case Oleg spotted, *and* we know how to BUG_ON to make sure noone introduces new ones, I think this is clearest. Thanks, Rusty. -- 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/