From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 11:24:09 +0100 From: Heiko Carstens Subject: Re: WARN_ON_ONCE(!new_owner) within wake_futex_pi() triggered References: <20181127081115.GB3625@osiris> <20181129112321.GB3449@osiris> <20190128134410.GA28485@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20190128135804.GB28878@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20190129090108.GA26906@osiris> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20190129102409.GB26906@osiris> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Martin Schwidefsky , LKML , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Stefan Liebler , Sebastian Sewior List-ID: On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 10:45:44AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jan 2019, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 04:53:19PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > Patch below cures that. > > > > With your patch the kernel warning doesn't occur anymore. So if this > > is supposed to be the fix feel free to add: > > Yes, it's supposed to be the fix. > > > > However now I see every now and then the following failure from the > > same test case: > > > > tst-robustpi8: ../nptl/pthread_mutex_lock.c:425: __pthread_mutex_lock_full: Assertion `INTERNAL_SYSCALL_ERRNO (e, __err) != ESRCH || !robust' failed. > > > > /* ESRCH can happen only for non-robust PI mutexes where > > the owner of the lock died. */ > > assert (INTERNAL_SYSCALL_ERRNO (e, __err) != ESRCH || !robust); > > > > I just verified that this happened also without your patch, I just > > didn't see it since I started my tests with panic_on_warn=1 and the > > warning triggered always earlier. > > So, this seems to be something different. > > Moo. I ran the test loop all night (simply because I forgot to stop it) and > of course this does not trigger here. Could you try to gather a bit more > information with lightweight tracing? Yes, sure. However ;) I reproduced the above with v5.0-rc4 + your patch. And now I am trying to reproduce with linux-next 20190129 + your patch and it doesn't trigger. Did I miss a patch which is only in linux-next which could fix this?