[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1306405979.1200.63.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 12:32:59 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...sony.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] "sched: Remove rq->lock from the first half of ttwu()"
locks up on ARM
On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 15:29 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> > Figuring out why the existing condition failed
>
> Seems 'current' will change before/after switch_to since it's derived from
> sp register.
> So that means if interrupt come before we switch sp, 'p == current' will
> catch it, but if interrupt comes after we switch sp, we will lose a wake up.
Well, loosing a wakeup isn't the problem here (although it would be a
problem), the immediate problem is that we're getting stuck
(life-locked) in that while (p->on_cpu) loop.
But yes, I think that explains it, if the interrupts hits
context_switch() after current was changed but before clearing
p->on_cpu, we would life-lock in interrupt context.
Now we could of course go add in_interrupt() checks there, but that
would make this already fragile path more interesting, so I think I'll
stick with the proposed patch -- again provided it actually works.
Marc, any word on that?
--
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