On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 04:37:14PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Hmm, even there it matters, because of the following scenario:
>
> CPU 0
> smp_call_function_single(CPU 1)
> csd_lock(CPU 1)
No, smpl_call_function_single(CPU 1)
will csd_lock(CPU 0), not csd_lock(CPU 1)
> irq_enter()
> irq_exit()
> __do_softirq()
> smp_call_function_many()
> setup csd (CPU 1)
> csd_lock(CPU 1) ==> CPU 0 deadlocked itself.
>
maybe below is the scenario:
irq_enter()
irq_exit()
__do_softirq()
smp_call_function_single()
setup csd (CPU 1)
csd_lock(CPU 0) ==> CPU 0 deadlocked itself.
> And this is even more likely to happen than the lock issue.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
> --
> 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/
--
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/
