[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1232988371.4863.162.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 17:46:11 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>
Cc: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at fs/ext/super.c:428
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 08:39 -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c
> > index f89d373..f4132ab 100644
> > --- a/kernel/futex.c
> > +++ b/kernel/futex.c
> > @@ -929,7 +929,7 @@ out_unlock:
> >
> > /* drop_futex_key_refs() must be called outside the spinlocks. */
> > while (--drop_count >= 0)
> > - drop_futex_key_refs(&key1);
> > + drop_futex_key_refs(&key2);
>
> Unfortunately, I realized later that this code was indeed correct and I
> asked Ingo to pull my patch implementing the above change. Quoting my
> previous mail on the subject:
>
> "I believe what is happening here is that the requeue loop requeues each
> waiter from one futex (key1) to another (key2). It rightly takes a
> reference to the futex at key2 and then decrements the references to
> key1 by drop_count (since the waiters now reference key2, not key1).
> The newly taken key2 references will be dropped in futex_wait() when
> each waiter is woken up and takes the futex."
Argh, that wants a comment..
--
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