[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141126152334.GA9648@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 17:23:34 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <dahi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
paulus@...ba.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
borntraeger@...ibm.com, mingo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] Reenable might_sleep() checks for might_fault() when
atomic
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 05:17:29PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:05:04AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > What's the path you are trying to debug?
> >
> > Well, we had a problem where we held a spin_lock and called
> > copy_(from|to)_user(). We experienced very random deadlocks that took some guy
> > almost a week to debug. The simple might_sleep() check would have showed this
> > error immediately.
>
> This must have been a very old kernel.
> A modern kernel will return an error from copy_to_user.
> Which is really the point of the patch you are trying to revert.
That's assuming you disabled preemption. If you didn't, and take
a spinlock, you have deadlocks even without userspace access.
--
MST
--
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