[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1007121503010.3321@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:05:30 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] futex: convert hash_bucket locks to raw_spinlock_t
On Fri, 9 Jul 2010, Darren Hart wrote:
> The requeue_pi mechanism introduced proxy locking of the rtmutex. This creates
> a scenario where a task can wake-up, not knowing it has been enqueued on an
> rtmutex. In order to detect this, the task would have to be able to take either
> task->pi_blocked_on->lock->wait_lock and/or the hb->lock. Unfortunately,
> without already holding one of these, the pi_blocked_on variable can change
> from NULL to valid or from valid to NULL. Therefor, the task cannot be allowed
> to take a sleeping lock after wakeup or it could end up trying to block on two
> locks, the second overwriting a valid pi_blocked_on value. This obviously
> breaks the pi mechanism.
>
> This patch increases latency, while running the ltp pthread_cond_many test
> which Michal reported the bug with, I see double digit hrtimer latencies
> (typically only on the first run after boo):
>
> kernel: hrtimer: interrupt took 75911 ns
Eewwww. There must be some more intelligent and less intrusive way to
detect this.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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