[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzqzHa_6bHrqaa+6k3PZiibuJuDd1VwVD7jL047BjR=hA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 20:46:08 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Emmanuel Benisty <benisty.e@...il.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
hhuang@...hat.com, "Low, Jason" <jason.low2@...com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
"Vinod, Chegu" <chegu_vinod@...com>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
Subject: Re: ipc,sem: sysv semaphore scalability
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Emmanuel Benisty <benisty.e@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Then I start building a random package and the problems start. They
> may also happen without compiling but this seems to trigger the bug
> quite quickly.
I suspect it's about preemption, and the build just results in enough
scheduling load that you start hitting whatever race there is.
> Anyway, some progress here, I hope: dmesg seems to be
> willing to reveal some secrets (using some pastebin service since this
> is pretty big):
>
> https://gist.github.com/anonymous/5275120
That looks like exactly the exit_sem() bug that Davidlohr was talking
about, where the
/* exit_sem raced with IPC_RMID, nothing to do */
if (IS_ERR(sma))
continue;
should be moved to *before* the
sem_lock(sma, NULL, -1);
call. And apparently the bug I had found is already fixed in -next.
Linus
--
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