linux-kernel - Re: Filesystem lockup with CONFIG_PREEMPT

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 27 Jun 2014 13:54:15 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Cc:	Austin Schuh <austin@...oton-tech.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Filesystem lockup with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT

On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 19:34:53 +0200
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 10:01 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> > This seems like a lot of hacks.
> 
> It is exactly that, lacking proper pooper-scooper, show rt kernel how to
> not step in it.
> 
> > I'm wondering if it would work if we
> > just have the rt_spin_lock_slowlock not call schedule(), but call
> > __schedule() directly. I mean it would keep with the mainline paradigm
> > as spinlocks don't sleep there, and one going to sleep in the -rt
> > kernel is similar to it being preempted by a very long NMI.
> 
> Problem being that we do sleep there, do need wakeup.  I have a hack
> that turns them back into spinning locks, but it.. works too :)

Why do we need the wakeup? the owner of the lock should wake it up
shouldn't it?


-- Steve
--
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/