public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Valerie Aurora <vaurora@redhat.com>
Cc: npiggin@suse.de, jblunck@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	paulmck@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] atomic: Fix _atomic_dec_and_lock() deadlock on UP
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:45:43 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090615114543.80c420b3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090615181113.GD352@shell>

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:11:13 -0400
Valerie Aurora <vaurora@redhat.com> wrote:

> _atomic_dec_and_lock() can deadlock on UP with spinlock debugging
> enabled.  Currently, on UP we unconditionally spin_lock() first, which
> calls __spin_lock_debug(), which takes the lock unconditionally even
> on UP.  This will deadlock in situations in which we call
> atomic_dec_and_lock() knowing that the counter won't go to zero
> (because we hold another reference) and that we already hold the lock.
> Instead, we should use the SMP code path which only takes the lock if
> necessary.

Yup, I have this queued for 2.6.31 as
atomic-only-take-lock-when-the-counter-drops-to-zero-on-up-as-well.patch,
with a different changelog:

  _atomic_dec_and_lock() should not unconditionally take the lock before
  calling atomic_dec_and_test() in the UP case.  For consistency reasons it
  should behave exactly like in the SMP case.

  Besides that this works around the problem that with CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK
  this spins in __spin_lock_debug() if the lock is already taken even if the
  counter doesn't drop to 0.

  Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <jblunck@suse.de>
  Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
  Acked-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
  Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>


I can't remember why we decided that 2.6.30 doesn't need this.


  reply	other threads:[~2009-06-15 18:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-06-15 18:11 [PATCH] atomic: Fix _atomic_dec_and_lock() deadlock on UP Valerie Aurora
2009-06-15 18:45 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2009-06-15 19:12   ` Valerie Aurora
2009-06-15 19:31     ` Andrew Morton
2009-06-15 18:56 ` Paul E. McKenney

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=20090615114543.80c420b3.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=jblunck@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=npiggin@suse.de \
    --cc=paulmck@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=vaurora@redhat.com \
    /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