[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1362259221.3602.8.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2013 13:20:21 -0800
From: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>
To: Emmanuel Benisty <benisty.e@...il.com>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Vinod, Chegu" <chegu_vinod@...com>,
"Low, Jason" <jason.low2@...com>,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, aquini@...hat.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] ipc: do not hold ipc lock more than necessary
On Sat, 2013-03-02 at 15:35 +0700, Emmanuel Benisty wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Emmanuel Benisty <benisty.e@...il.com> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com> wrote:
> >>> The following set of not-thoroughly-tested patches are based on the
> >>> discussion of holding the ipc lock unnecessarily, such as for permissions
> >>> and security checks:
> >>>
> >>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/28/540
> >>>
> >>> Patch 0/1: Introduces new functions, analogous to ipc_lock and ipc_lock_check
> >>> in the ipc utility code, allowing to obtain the ipc object without holding the lock.
> >>>
> >>> Patch 0/2: Use the new functions and only acquire the ipc lock when needed.
> >>
> >> Not sure how much a work in progress this is but my machine dies
> >> immediately when I start chromium, crappy mobile phone picture here:
> >> http://i.imgur.com/S0hfPz3.jpg
> >
> > We are missing the top of the trace there, so it's hard to be sure -
> > however, this could well be caused by the if (!out) check (instead of
> > if (IS_ERR(out)) that I noticed in patch 1/2.
>
> Merci Michel but unfortunately, I'm still getting the same issue.
Will try to reproduce (and further testing on other machines) and debug
later today.
Thanks for testing,
Davidlohr
--
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