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 S1753354Ab2LKNFv (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:05:51 -0500
Received: from e28smtp04.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.4]:50711 "EHLO
	e28smtp04.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753157Ab2LKNFt (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:05:49 -0500
Message-ID: <50C72F4B.9090805@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:34:11 +0530
From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120828 Thunderbird/15.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
CC: rostedt@goodmis.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org,
        paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, mingo@kernel.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, namhyung@kernel.org,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, tj@kernel.org, sbw@mit.edu,
        amit.kucheria@linaro.org, rjw@sisk.pl, wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com, nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/9] CPU hotplug: Provide APIs to prevent CPU offline
 from atomic context
References: <20121207173702.27305.1486.stgit@srivatsabhat.in.ibm.com> <20121207173759.27305.84316.stgit@srivatsabhat.in.ibm.com> <20121209205733.GA7038@redhat.com> <50C570F9.2020801@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20121210181521.GA30684@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20121210181521.GA30684@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 12121113-5564-0000-0000-000005BC0E3F
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 12/10/2012 11:45 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 12/10, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>
>> On 12/10/2012 02:27 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> However. If this is true, then compared to preempt_disable/stop_machine
>>> livelock is possible. Probably this is fine, we have the same problem with
>>> get_online_cpus(). But if we can accept this fact I feel we can simmplify
>>> this somehow... Can't prove, only feel ;)
>>
>> Not sure I follow..
> 
> I meant that write_lock_irqsave(&hotplug_rwlock) in take_cpu_down()
> can spin "forever".
> 
> Suppose that reader_acked() == T on every CPU, so that
> get_online_cpus_atomic() always takes read_lock(&hotplug_rwlock).
> 
> It is possible that this lock will be never released by readers,
> 
> 	CPU_0				CPU_1
> 
> 	get_online_cpus_atomic()
> 					get_online_cpus_atomic()
> 	put_online_cpus_atomic()
> 
> 	get_online_cpus_atomic()
> 					put_online_cpus_atomic()
> 
> 					get_online_cpus_atomic()
> 	put_online_cpus_atomic()
> 
> and so on.
> 

Right, and we can't do anything about it :(
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat