[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1473209119.32433.174.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2016 20:45:19 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: nick <xerofoify@...il.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm:Avoid soft lockup due to possible attempt of double
locking object's lock in __delete_object
On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 09:24 -0400, nick wrote:
>
> On 2016-08-31 03:54 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:35:12PM -0400, Nicholas Krause wrote:
> > > This fixes a issue in the current locking logic of the function,
> > > __delete_object where we are trying to attempt to lock the passed
> > > object structure's spinlock again after being previously held
> > > elsewhere by the kmemleak code. Fix this by instead of assuming
> > > we are the only one contending for the object's lock their are
> > > possible other users and create two branches, one where we get
> > > the lock when calling spin_trylock_irqsave on the object's lock
> > > and the other when the lock is held else where by kmemleak.
> >
> > Have you actually got a deadlock that requires this fix?
> >
> Yes I have got a deadlock that this does fix.
Why don't you share the backtrace with us?
Claiming you have a deadlock, but not sharing
it on the list means nobody can see what the
problem is you are trying to address.
It would be good if every email with a patch
that you post starts with an actual detailed
problem description.
Can you do that?
--
All Rights Reversed.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists