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 S1753410AbbCGB6s (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58:48 -0500
Received: from g1t5425.austin.hp.com ([15.216.225.55]:54422 "EHLO
	g1t5425.austin.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750830AbbCGB6r (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58:47 -0500
X-Greylist: delayed 25300 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 20:58:47 EST
Message-ID: <1425693523.2475.319.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Subject: Re: softlockups in multi_cpu_stop
From: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
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>, jason.low2@hp.com
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 17:58:43 -0800
In-Reply-To: <1425680137.19505.63.camel@stgolabs.net>
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>
	 <1425680137.19505.63.camel@stgolabs.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
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 14:15 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> 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.

Actually, the rationale is that when the lock owner reschedules while
holding the lock, we'd want the spinners to stop spinning. The original
owner_running() check takes care of this since it returns false if
->on_cpu gets set to false and the sem->owner != NULL would be false
causing us to stop spinning . However, with the patch, when
owner_running returns false, we check sem->owner, which causes the
->on_cpu check to essentially get ignored.