Re: Regression in gdm-2.18 since 2.6.24

[Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>]

On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 14:20 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 12:48:33AM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> >  Well, I found your analysis convincing.  Unfortunately, my hardware
> > disagreed.  Testing -rc8 with CONFIG_GROUP_SCHED disabled (a test is
> > a mixture of 5 attempts to restart and 5 to shutdown):
> > 
> > 1. the base version success is 4/10
> > 
> > 2. increasing the granularity by a factor of 10 as you requested,
> > success is 8/10
> 
> This makes me think that we are just exposing a timing related problem
> in gdm here.
> 
> How abt a larger factor?
> 
> 	# echo 200000000 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_wakeup_granularity_ns
> 
> Does that make it 10/10 ?!
> 
> Anyway, it would be interesting to analyze the failure scenario more
> (with help from gdm developers). Can you get some more debug data in this 
> regard?
> 
> Before you shutdown,
> 
> 	# strace -p <gdm-binary-pid1> 2>/tmp/gdmlog1 &
> 	# strace -p <gdm-binary-pid2> 2>/tmp/gdmlog2 &
> 
> Now shutdown and wait few minutes to confirm its not working. Send me
> the strace log files ..Hopefully this will give a hint on what they are
> deadlocked on (in the last log you sent, i can see both gdm-binaries in
> sleep state ..whether that was a momentary state or whether they are 
> actually deadlocked, will be confirmed by strace logs above).
> 
> >  If I was confused earlier, I guess I must be dazed and confused
> > now!
> 
> me too!
> 
> Ingo/Peter, Any other suggestions you have?

Sounds like a race condition to me; non of these changes affect
correctness in a strict manner of speaking.