On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Heiko Carstens
<heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello Dan,
>
>> > If you look at commit 5e33bc4165f3 ("driver core / ACPI: Avoid device hot
>> > remove locking issues") then lock_device_hotplug_sysfs() was introduced to
>> > avoid a different subtle deadlock, but it also sleeps uninterruptible, but
>> > not for more than 5ms ;)
>> >
>> > However I'm not sure if the device hotplug lock should also be used to fix
>> > an unrelated bug that was introduced with the get_online_mems() /
>> > put_online_mems() interface. Should it?
>>
>> No, I don't think it should.
>>
>> I like your proposed direction of creating a new lock internal to
>> mem_hotplug_begin() to protect active_writer, and stop relying on
>> lock_device_hotplug to serve this purpose.
>>
>> > If so, we need to sprinkle around a couple of lock_device_hotplug() calls
>> > near mem_hotplug_begin() calls, like Sebastian already started, and give it
>> > additional semantics (protecting mem_hotplug.active_writer), and hope it
>> > doesn't lead to deadlocks anywhere.
>>
>> I'll put your proposed patch through some testing.
>
> On s390 it _seems_ to work. Did it pass your testing too?
> If so I would send a patch with proper patch description for inclusion.
Looks ok here. No lockdep warnings running it through it paces with
the persistent memory use case.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
