[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170308112144.63dc36de@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 11:21:44 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...nel.org, juri.lelli@....com, xlpang@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
jdesfossez@...icios.com, bristot@...hat.com, dvhart@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] futex: move debug_rt_mutex_free_waiter() further down
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 16:37:32 +0100
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On 2017-03-08 16:29:02 [+0100], To Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Without this, futex_requeue_pi_signal_restart will trigger
> >
> > |kernel BUG at locking/rtmutex_common.h:55!
> > |Call Trace:
> > | rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock+0x54/0x90
> > | futex_wait_requeue_pi.constprop.21+0x387/0x4d0
> > | do_futex+0x289/0xbf0
> > |RIP: remove_waiter+0x157/0x170 RSP: ffffc90000e0fbe0
> >
> > with BUG 2222222222222222 != pointer once this patch is applied.
>
> My wording is wrong. This BUG_ON() statement described here in this
> patch (together with the test case mentioned) will trigger once
>
> "[PATCH -v5 12/14] futex,rt_mutex: Restructure rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock()"
>
> is applied.
>
Now I read this. Ignore my last email.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists