On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:04:25 +0800
Li Zhong <zh...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> This patch tries to fix a dead loop in async_synchronize_full(), which
> could be seen when preemption is disabled on a single cpu machine.
>
> void async_synchronize_full(void)
> {
> do {
> async_synchronize_cookie(next_cookie);
> } while (!list_empty(&async_running) || !
> list_empty(&async_pending));
> }
>
> async_synchronize_cookie() calls async_synchronize_cookie_domain() with
> &async_running as the default domain to synchronize.
>
> However, there might be some works in the async_pending list from other
> domains. On a single cpu system, without preemption, there is no chance
> for the other works to finish, so async_synchronize_full() enters a dead
> loop.
>
> It seems async_synchronize_full() wants to synchronize all entries in
> all running lists(domains), so maybe we could just check the entry_count
> to know whether all works are finished.
>
> Currently, async_synchronize_cookie_domain() expects a non-NULL running
> list ( if NULL, there would be NULL pointer dereference ), so maybe a
> NULL pointer could be used as an indication for the functions to
> synchronize all works in all domains.
The patch is fairly wordwrapped - please fix up your email client.
More seriously, it does not apply to linux-next due to some fairly
significant changes which have been sitting in Dan's tree since May.
What's going on?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
