From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <43CEA56D.8000407@domain.hid> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 21:30:37 +0100 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] Scheduling while atomic References: <43CE9FCB.2070305@domain.hid> <17358.42102.613327.327841@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <17358.42102.613327.327841@domain.hid> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig04BF995DC8527F09E7C6F287" Sender: jan.kiszka@domain.hid List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gilles Chanteperdrix Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig04BF995DC8527F09E7C6F287 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: > > Jeroen Van den Keybus wrote: > > > Gilles, > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > I cannot reproduce those messages after turning nucleus debugging = on. > > > Instead, I now either get relatively more failing mutexes or even = hard > > > lockups with the test program I sent to you. If the computer didn'= t crash, > > > dmesg contains 3 Xenomai messages relating to a task being movend = to > > > secondary domain after exception #14. As when the computer crashes= : I have > > > written the last kernel panic message on a paper. Please tell if y= ou want > > > also the addresses or (part of) the call stack. > > >=20 > > > I'm still wondering if there's a programming error in the mutex te= st > > > program. After I sent my previous message, and before I turned nuc= leus > > > debugging on, I managed (by reducing the sleeptimes to max. 5.0e4)= to > > > fatally crash the computer, while spewing out countless 'schedulin= g while > > > atomic messages'. Is the mutex error reproducible ? > >=20 > > I was not able to crash my box or generate that scheduler warnings, = but > > the attached patch fixes the false positive warnings of unlocked > > mutexes. We had a "leak" in the unlock path when someone was already= > > waiting. Anyway, *this* issues should not have caused any other prob= lems > > then the wrong report of rt_mutex_inquire(). >=20 > Actually the patch seem insufficient, the whole block : > { > xnsynch_set_owner(&mutex->synch_base,&task->thread_base); > mutex->owner =3D task; > mutex->lockcnt =3D 1; > goto unlock_and_exit; > } >=20 > should be done after xnsynch_sleep_on in rt_mutex_lock. >=20 Damn, of course - except for "mutex->owner =3D task". Then this missing xnsync_set_owner() may have caused serious issues? Will test... Jan --------------enig04BF995DC8527F09E7C6F287 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDzqVtniDOoMHTA+kRAn3JAJ41z4hCnq02gmq8vAwGvGjXt4qITgCfXg6P HJ47svPHQotZ9UfLWyFLxes= =ASE4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig04BF995DC8527F09E7C6F287--