On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:38:21PM +0400, Roman Gushchin wrote:

> I still think, there is a deadlock. I'll try to explain.
> Three CPUs must be involved:
> CPU0				CPU1				CPU2
> take rq->lock			period timer fired		
> ...				take cfs_b lock
> ...				...				tg_set_cfs_bandwidth()
> throttle_cfs_rq()		release cfs_b lock		take cfs_b lock
> ...				distribute_cfs_runtime()	timer_active = 0
> take cfs_b->lock		wait for rq->lock		...
> __start_cfs_bandwidth()	
> {wait for timer callback
>  break if timer_active == 1}
> 
> So, CPU0 and CPU1 are deadlocked.

OK, so can someone explain this ->timer_active thing? esp. what's the
'obvious' difference with hrtimer_active()?


Ideally we'd change the lot to not have this, but if we have to keep it
we'll need to make it lockdep visible because all this stinks