[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090106170204.GB32608@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 18:02:04 +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
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > Right now, if some process deadlocks on a mutex, we get hung process,
> > but with a nice backtrace and hopefully other things (that don't need
> > that lock) still continue to work.
>
> Clarification: the "nice backtrace" we only get with something like
> sysrq-W, of course. We don't get a backtrace _automatically_, but with
> an otherwise live machine, there's a better chance that people do get
> wchan or other info. IOW, it's at least a fairly debuggable situation.
btw., the softlockup watchdog detects non-progressing uninterruptible
tasks (regardless of whether they locked up due to mutexes or any other
reason).
This does occasionally help in debugging deadlocks:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=122889587725061&w=2
but it would indeed be also good to have the most common self-deadlock
case checked unconditionally in the mutex slowpath.
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