[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1425680137.19505.63.camel@stgolabs.net>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 14:15:37 -0800
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: softlockups in multi_cpu_stop
On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 13:12 -0800, Jason Low wrote:
> In owner_running() there are 2 conditions that would make it return
> false: if the owner changed or if the owner is not running. However,
> that patch continues spinning if there is a "new owner" but it does not
> take into account that we may want to stop spinning if the owner is not
> running (due to getting rescheduled).
So you're rationale is that we're missing this need_resched:
while (owner_running(sem, owner)) {
/* abort spinning when need_resched */
if (need_resched()) {
rcu_read_unlock();
return false;
}
}
Because the owner_running() would return false, right? Yeah that makes
sense, as missing a resched is a bug, as opposed to our heuristics being
so painfully off.
Sasha, Ming (Cc'ed), does this address the issues you guys are seeing?
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
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