lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 19:10:05 -0800 From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net> To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com> Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk> Subject: Re: softlockups in multi_cpu_stop On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 10:55 +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net> wrote: > > On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 18:26 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > >> That's not what this is about. New lock _owners_ need to worry about > > ^^^ make that "need not" > > Sorry, could you explain a bit why new owner can't be scheduled > out(on_cpu becomes zero)? If that is possible, it still can cause > soft lockup like current problem. Oh its not that it can't be scheduled out. The point is we don't care what happens with the lock owner itself (new or not). We care about, and the point of this discussion, how _other_ threads handle themselves when trying to take that lock (a lock having an owner implies the lock is not free, of course). So if a lock owner gets scheduled out... so what? That's already taken into account by spinners. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists