[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzmQe+Q60jjEKmu=Jv-wUCgeAeErp6ANbSmfO45j7Q8ZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 14:42:11 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2] sched/wait: Introduce lock breaker in wake_up_page_bit
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> End result: page is unlocked, CPU3 is waiting, nothing will wake CPU3 up.
Not CPU3. CPU3 was the waker. It's thread 2 that is waiting and never
got woken up, of course.
Other than that, the scenario still looks real to me.
Ideas?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists