[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090615114543.80c420b3.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:45:43 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Valerie Aurora <vaurora@...hat.com>
Cc: npiggin@...e.de, jblunck@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
paulmck@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] atomic: Fix _atomic_dec_and_lock() deadlock on UP
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:11:13 -0400
Valerie Aurora <vaurora@...hat.com> wrote:
> _atomic_dec_and_lock() can deadlock on UP with spinlock debugging
> enabled. Currently, on UP we unconditionally spin_lock() first, which
> calls __spin_lock_debug(), which takes the lock unconditionally even
> on UP. This will deadlock in situations in which we call
> atomic_dec_and_lock() knowing that the counter won't go to zero
> (because we hold another reference) and that we already hold the lock.
> Instead, we should use the SMP code path which only takes the lock if
> necessary.
Yup, I have this queued for 2.6.31 as
atomic-only-take-lock-when-the-counter-drops-to-zero-on-up-as-well.patch,
with a different changelog:
_atomic_dec_and_lock() should not unconditionally take the lock before
calling atomic_dec_and_test() in the UP case. For consistency reasons it
should behave exactly like in the SMP case.
Besides that this works around the problem that with CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK
this spins in __spin_lock_debug() if the lock is already taken even if the
counter doesn't drop to 0.
Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <jblunck@...e.de>
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
I can't remember why we decided that 2.6.30 doesn't need this.
--
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