Hello,
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:05:53AM +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
> It seems to me cpu_add_remove_lock is always taken after
> device_hotplug_lock.
>
> So if cpu_add_remove_lock has been acquired by device removing process,
> then it means the other online/offline process couldn't successfully
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:05:53AM +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
It seems to me cpu_add_remove_lock is always taken after
device_hotplug_lock.
So if cpu_add_remove_lock has been acquired by device removing process,
then it means the other online/offline process couldn't successfully try
On Wed, 2014-04-16 at 11:17 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 09:41:40AM +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
> > > If so, that is
> > > an actually possible deadlock, no?
> >
> > Yes, but it seems to me that it is solved in commit 5e33bc41, which uses
> >
Hello,
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 09:41:40AM +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
> > 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
Hello,
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 09:41:40AM +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
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
On Wed, 2014-04-16 at 11:17 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 09:41:40AM +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
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
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
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
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
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
*
On Mon, 2014-04-14 at 16:13 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 03:47:29PM +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
> > @@ -439,6 +439,7 @@ static ssize_t online_store(struct device *dev, struct
> > device_attribute *attr,
> > {
> > bool val;
> > int ret;
> > + struct
Hello,
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 03:47:29PM +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
> @@ -439,6 +439,7 @@ static ssize_t online_store(struct device *dev, struct
> device_attribute *attr,
> {
> bool val;
> int ret;
> + struct kernfs_node *kn;
>
> ret = strtobool(buf, );
> if (ret < 0)
I noticed following lockdep warning when trying acpi hot-remove cpus:
[84154.204080] ==
[84154.204080] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[84154.204080] 3.14.0-next-20140408+ #24 Tainted: GW
[84154.204080]
On Mon, 2014-04-14 at 16:13 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 03:47:29PM +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
@@ -439,6 +439,7 @@ static ssize_t online_store(struct device *dev, struct
device_attribute *attr,
{
bool val;
int ret;
+ struct kernfs_node *kn;
I noticed following lockdep warning when trying acpi hot-remove cpus:
[84154.204080] ==
[84154.204080] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[84154.204080] 3.14.0-next-20140408+ #24 Tainted: GW
[84154.204080]
Hello,
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 03:47:29PM +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
@@ -439,6 +439,7 @@ static ssize_t online_store(struct device *dev, struct
device_attribute *attr,
{
bool val;
int ret;
+ struct kernfs_node *kn;
ret = strtobool(buf, val);
if (ret 0)
@@
16 matches
Mail list logo
