[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141021121304.076d5acd@free-electrons.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 12:13:04 +0200
From: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>
To: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexandre FOURNIER <alexandre.fournier@...p-e.com>,
Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com>,
Marcin Wojtas <mw@...ihalf.com>,
Gregory Clément
<gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>
Subject: Re: RCU stall in af_unix.c, should use spin_lock_irqsave?
Dear Hannes Frederic Sowa,
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 12:08:52 +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On Di, 2014-10-21 at 10:03 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> > So, the question is: is this patch the correct solution (but then other
> > usage of spin_lock in af_unix.c might also need fixing) ? Or is the
> > network driver at fault?
>
> It feels like a false positive. Do you see one core spinning tightly on
> a lock? Does the system get unusable?
Interrupts are still enabled (for example, sysrq are still working),
but scheduling no longer takes place (all processes are blocked).
Best regards,
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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