From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1758548AbdEMAXV (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 12 May 2017 20:23:21 -0400
Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:36532 "EHLO mail.kernel.org"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751631AbdEMAXU (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 12 May 2017 20:23:20 -0400
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8E8D223986
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=goodmis.org
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=rostedt@goodmis.org
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 20:23:16 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/5] cpu-hotplug: Allow get_online_cpus() to nest
Message-ID: <20170512202316.49df3548@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1705130013210.2340@nanos>
References: <20170512171544.100715273@goodmis.org>
        <20170512172450.000006488@goodmis.org>
        <alpine.DEB.2.20.1705130013210.2340@nanos>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.0 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sat, 13 May 2017 00:15:03 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:

> On Fri, 12 May 2017, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >  void get_online_cpus(void)
> >  {
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> > +	if (current->goc_depth++)
> > +		return;  
> 
> This must be unconditional and not depend on lockdep. The percpu rwsem is
> going to deadlock silently otherwise when a writer is waiting ....
> 

After I sent the updated changes to Paul, I realized this. But didn't
update it as I turned my attention to seeing if we can still get it
done without it.

But I'm not convinced that we can yet. I'll reply to Peter's email
again later.

-- Steve