[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150710142824.GK19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:28:24 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
Subject: Re: [BUG][tip/master] kernel panic while locking selftest at
qspinlock_paravirt.h:137!
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 03:57:46PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > Do we want to make double unlock non-fatal unconditionally?
>
> No, just don't BUG() out, don't crash the system - generate a warning?
So that would be a yes..
Something like so then? Won't this generate a splat on that locking self
test then? And upset people?
---
kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h b/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
index 04ab18151cc8..286e8978a562 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
+++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
@@ -133,8 +133,14 @@ static struct pv_node *pv_unhash(struct qspinlock *lock)
* This guarantees a limited lookup time and is itself guaranteed by
* having the lock owner do the unhash -- IFF the unlock sees the
* SLOW flag, there MUST be a hash entry.
+ *
+ * This can trigger due to double-unlock. In which case, return a
+ * random pointer so that __pv_queued_spin_unlock() can dereference it
+ * without crashing.
*/
- BUG();
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(true);
+
+ return (struct pv_node *)this_cpu_ptr(&mcs_nodes[0]);
}
/*
--
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