[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170907124033.bmtsam7nizs7gnvv@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 14:40:33 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@...e-electrons.com>,
Mylene Josserand <mylene.josserand@...e-electrons.com>
Subject: Re: mutex_lock issues during poweroff
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 02:16:19PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> One thing worth noting is that we couldn't reproduce the issue with a
> 4.13. We can't bisect really easily due to the amount of patches that
> we still have on 4.9 and have all been merged since, but it seems like
> the bug was fixed (either on purpose or as a side effect), and was
> never sent to stable. Looking at the history of kernel/locking/mutex.c
> during that window didn't really show anything obvious though.
>
> If you have any ideas or spot something very wrong, I'd be happy to
> hear about. Thanks!
Well, we did a _complete_ rewrite of the mutex primitive in v4.10-rc1.
Part of the reason for that rewrite was fixing a starvation case, but
for that you'd need to actually have contending usage, which you claim
not to have.
Aside from that I really can't remember any specific issues with the old
code (4.9 is such a long time ago). You could try to disable the
optimistic spinning code, see if that helps.
You did also say you were running on an ARM64, there were a few memory
ordering fixes like for example commit:
50972fe78f24 ("locking/osq_lock: Fix osq_lock queue corruption")
Powered by blists - more mailing lists