From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755614AbbCFWPt (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 6 Mar 2015 17:15:49 -0500
Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:52454 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754677AbbCFWPq (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 6 Mar 2015 17:15:46 -0500
Message-ID: <1425680137.19505.63.camel@stgolabs.net>
Subject: Re: softlockups in multi_cpu_stop
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>,
        Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 14:15:37 -0800
In-Reply-To: <1425676346.2475.135.camel@j-VirtualBox>
References: <54F41516.6060608@oracle.com> <54F98F1F.3080107@oracle.com>
	 <20150306123233.GA9972@gmail.com> <1425662342.19505.41.camel@stgolabs.net>
	 <1425668223.2475.94.camel@j-VirtualBox>
	 <CA+55aFwZufdV5Q7Wm+b2F8KurtgXsJ_eNe9b6_TOSUhuW_GfSg@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1425670188.2475.113.camel@j-VirtualBox>
	 <1425676346.2475.135.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 13:12 -0800, Jason Low wrote:
> In owner_running() there are 2 conditions that would make it return
> false: if the owner changed or if the owner is not running. However,
> that patch continues spinning if there is a "new owner" but it does not
> take into account that we may want to stop spinning if the owner is not
> running (due to getting rescheduled).

So you're rationale is that we're missing this need_resched:

	while (owner_running(sem, owner)) {
		/* abort spinning when need_resched */
		if (need_resched()) {
			rcu_read_unlock();
			return false;
		}
	}

Because the owner_running() would return false, right? Yeah that makes
sense, as missing a resched is a bug, as opposed to our heuristics being
so painfully off.

Sasha, Ming (Cc'ed), does this address the issues you guys are seeing?

Thanks,
Davidlohr