[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <549ED5D7.8070007@oracle.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 10:52:55 -0500
From: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Li Bin <huawei.libin@...wei.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, rui.xiang@...wei.com,
wengmeiling.weng@...wei.com
Subject: Re: sched: spinlock recursion in sched_rr_get_interval
On 12/27/2014 04:52 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> Hello,
>> > Does ACCESS_ONCE() can help this issue? I have no evidence that its lack is
>> > responsible for the issue, but I think here need it indeed. Is that right?
>> >
>> > SPIN_BUG_ON(ACCESS_ONCE(lock->owner) == current, "recursion");
> Hmm I guess on a contended spinlock, there's a chance that lock->owner
> can change, if the contended lock is acquired, right between the 'cond'
> and spin_debug(), which would explain the bogus ->owner related
> messages. Of course the same applies to ->owner_cpu. Your ACCESS_ONCE,
> however, doesn't really change anything since we still read ->owner
> again in spin_debug; How about something like this (untested)?
There's a chance that lock->owner would change, but how would you explain
it changing to 'current'?
That is, what race condition specifically creates the
'lock->owner == current' situation in the debug check?
Thanks,
Sasha
--
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