[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090106165615.GA5168@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 17:56:15 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC]: mutex: adaptive spin
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> One thought:
>
> BUG_ON()'s do_exit() shows a slightly misleading failure pattern to
> users: instead of a 'hanging' task, we'd get a misbehaving app due to
> one of its tasks exiting spuriously. It can even go completely unnoticed
> [users dont look at kernel logs normally] - while a hanging task
> generally does get noticed. (because there's no progress in processing)
>
> So instead of the BUG_ON() we could emit a WARN_ONCE() perhaps, plus not
> do any spinning and just block - resulting in an uninterruptible task
> (that the user will probably notice) and a scary message in the syslog?
> [all in the slowpath]
And we'd strictly do an uninterruptible sleep here, unconditionally: even
if this is within mutex_lock_interruptible() - we dont want a Ctrl-C or a
SIGKILL to allow to 'break out' the app from the deadlock.
Ingo
--
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