From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Possible bug with mutex adaptative spinning
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 08:00:32 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1271455232.13059.197.camel@pasglop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1271453184.1674.483.camel@laptop>
>
> I've queued the below patch
Thanks. Should it make -stable as well ?
Cheers,
Ben.
> ---
> Subject: mutex: Don't spin when the owner CPU is offline or other weird cases
> From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
> Date: Fri Apr 16 23:20:00 CEST 2010
>
> Due to recent load-balancer changes that delay the task migration to
> the next wakeup, the adaptive mutex spinning ends up in a live lock
> when the owner's CPU gets offlined because the cpu_online() check
> lives before the owner running check.
>
> This patch changes mutex_spin_on_owner() to return 0 (don't spin) in
> any case where we aren't sure about the owner struct validity or CPU
> number, and if the said CPU is offline. There is no point going back &
> re-evaluate spinning in corner cases like that, let's just go to
> sleep.
>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> LKML-Reference: <1271212509.13059.135.camel@pasglop>
> ---
> kernel/sched.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c
> +++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -3647,7 +3647,7 @@ int mutex_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lo
> * the mutex owner just released it and exited.
> */
> if (probe_kernel_address(&owner->cpu, cpu))
> - goto out;
> + return 0;
> #else
> cpu = owner->cpu;
> #endif
> @@ -3657,14 +3657,14 @@ int mutex_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lo
> * the cpu field may no longer be valid.
> */
> if (cpu >= nr_cpumask_bits)
> - goto out;
> + return 0;
>
> /*
> * We need to validate that we can do a
> * get_cpu() and that we have the percpu area.
> */
> if (!cpu_online(cpu))
> - goto out;
> + return 0;
>
> rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
>
> @@ -3683,7 +3683,7 @@ int mutex_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lo
>
> cpu_relax();
> }
> -out:
> +
> return 1;
> }
> #endif
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-16 22:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-14 2:35 Possible bug with mutex adaptative spinning Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2010-04-14 2:56 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2010-04-16 21:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-16 22:01 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2010-04-16 21:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-16 22:00 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1271455232.13059.197.camel@pasglop \
--to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).