From: Li Zhong <zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com,
toshi.kani@hp.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] Use kernfs_break_active_protection() for device online store callbacks
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:41:40 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1397612500.13188.83.camel@ThinkPad-T5421.cn.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140415145017.GK1863@htj.dyndns.org>
On Tue, 2014-04-15 at 10:50 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:44:37AM +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
> > / *
> > * This process might deadlock with another process trying to
> > * remove this device:
> > * This process holding the s_active of "online" attribute, and tries
> > * to online/offline the device with some locks protecting hotplug.
> > * Device removing process holding some locks protecting hotplug, and
> > * tries to remove the "online" attribute, waiting for the s_active to
> > * be released.
> > *
> > * The deadlock described above should be solved with
> > * lock_device_hotplug_sysfs(). We temporarily drop the active
> > * protection here to avoid some lockdep warnings.
> > *
> > * If device_hotplug_lock is forgotten to be used when removing
> > * device(possibly some very simple device even don't need this lock?),
> > * @dev could go away any time after dropping the active protection.
> > * So increase its ref count before dropping active protection.
> > * Though invoking device_{on|off}line() on a removed device seems
> > * unreasonable, it should be less disastrous than playing with freed
> > * @dev. Also, we might be able to have some mechanism abort
> > * device_{on|off}line() if @dev already removed.
> > */
>
> Hmmm... I'm not sure I fully understand the problem. Does the code
> ever try to remove "online" while holding cpu_add_remove_lock and,
> when written 0, online knob grabs cpu_add_remove_lock?
Yes.
In acpi_processor_remove(), cpu_maps_update_begin() is called to hold
cpu_add_remove_lock, and then arch_unregister_cpu calls
unregister_cpu(), which will try to remove dir cpu1 including "online".
while written 0 to online, cpu_down() will also try to grab
cpu_add_remove_lock with cpu_maps_update_begin().
> If so, that is
> an actually possible deadlock, no?
Yes, but it seems to me that it is solved in commit 5e33bc41, which uses
lock_device_hotplug_sysfs() to return a restart syscall error if not
able to try lock the device_hotplug_lock. That also requires the device
removing code path to take the device_hotplug_lock.
Thanks, Zhong
>
> Thanks.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-16 1:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-10 9:18 [RFC PATCH] Suppress a device hot remove related lockdep warning Li Zhong
2014-04-10 13:31 ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-11 4:10 ` [RFC PATCH v2] Use kernfs_break_active_protection() for device online store callbacks Li Zhong
2014-04-11 10:26 ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-14 7:47 ` [RFC PATCH v3] " Li Zhong
2014-04-14 20:13 ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-15 2:44 ` Li Zhong
2014-04-15 14:50 ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-16 1:41 ` Li Zhong [this message]
2014-04-16 15:17 ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-17 3:05 ` Li Zhong
2014-04-17 15:06 ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-17 6:50 ` [RFC PATCH v4] " Li Zhong
2014-04-17 15:17 ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-18 8:33 ` Li Zhong
2014-04-21 9:20 ` [RFC PATCH v5 1/2] Use lock_device_hotplug() in cpu_probe_store() and cpu_release_store() Li Zhong
2014-04-21 9:23 ` [RFC PATCH v5 2/2] Use kernfs_break_active_protection() for device online store callbacks Li Zhong
2014-04-21 22:46 ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-22 3:34 ` Li Zhong
2014-04-22 10:11 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-04-23 1:50 ` Li Zhong
2014-04-23 10:54 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-04-24 1:13 ` Li Zhong
2014-04-22 20:44 ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-22 22:21 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-04-23 14:23 ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-23 16:12 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-04-23 16:52 ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-24 8:59 ` Li Zhong
2014-04-24 10:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-04-25 1:46 ` Li Zhong
2014-04-25 12:47 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-04-28 1:49 ` Li Zhong
2014-04-23 5:03 ` Li Zhong
2014-04-23 10:58 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-04-24 1:33 ` Li Zhong
2014-05-09 8:35 ` Li Zhong
2014-05-09 8:40 ` [RFC PATCH v6 1/2 ] Use lock_device_hotplug() in cpu_probe_store() and cpu_release_store() Li Zhong
2014-05-09 8:40 ` [RFC PATCH v6 2/2] Implement lock_device_hotplug_sysfs() by breaking active protection Li Zhong
2014-04-21 22:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 1/2] Use lock_device_hotplug() in cpu_probe_store() and cpu_release_store() Tejun Heo
2014-04-22 2:29 ` Li Zhong
2014-04-22 20:40 ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-23 2:00 ` Li Zhong
2014-04-23 14:39 ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-24 8:37 ` Li Zhong
2014-04-24 14:32 ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-25 1:56 ` Li Zhong
2014-04-25 12:28 ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-28 0:51 ` Li Zhong
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1397612500.13188.83.camel@ThinkPad-T5421.cn.ibm.com \
--to=zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=toshi.kani@hp.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).