[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a36005b50705310753x2a09172boa6ceb63f9ca4d4b8@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 07:53:49 -0700
From: "Ulrich Drepper" <drepper@...il.com>
To: "Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: "john stultz" <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Sripathi Kodi" <sripathik@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] futex_unlock_pi() hurts my brain and may cause application deadlock
On 5/30/07, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> > if (!(uval & FUTEX_OWNER_DIED)) {
> > pagefault_disable();
> > uval = futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic(uaddr, current->pid, 0);
> > pagefault_enable();
> > }
> [...]
> This code is in futex_unlock_pi. Can the owner of the mutex really die?
> Isn't the owner the one doing the unlock?
This is part of the implementation of robust PI futexes. The
semantics is that if the owner of a robust futex dies the futex is
marked with FUTEX_OWNER_DIED. The next locking thread then has to
clear that bit before calling pthread_mutex_unlock. If the bit is
still set while unlocking the mutex is permanently marked unusable. I
cannot say right now whether this is the semantics implemented above.
I'll have to check the glibc test suite whether we check for that
semantic.
-
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