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 S1752192AbcA2IOK (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 29 Jan 2016 03:14:10 -0500
Received: from LGEAMRELO13.lge.com ([156.147.23.53]:45468 "EHLO
	lgeamrelo13.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751287AbcA2IOJ (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 29 Jan 2016 03:14:09 -0500
X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.151
X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com
X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.222.33
X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 17:13:45 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akinobu.mita@gmail.com, jack@suse.cz,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] lib/spinlock_debug.c: prevent a recursive cycle in
 the debug code
Message-ID: <20160129081345.GF31266@X58A-UD3R>
References: <000301d15985$7f416690$7dc433b0$@lge.com>
 <20160128060530.GC1834@swordfish>
 <20160128081313.GB31266@X58A-UD3R>
 <20160128104137.GA610@swordfish>
 <20160128105342.GB610@swordfish>
 <20160128154257.GA564@swordfish>
 <56AA9F63.9070600@hurleysoftware.com>
 <20160129002703.GA4820@swordfish>
 <20160129065407.GE31266@X58A-UD3R>
 <20160129071330.GH4820@swordfish>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160129071330.GH4820@swordfish>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 04:13:30PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (01/29/16 15:54), Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 09:27:03AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > 
> > > well, the stack is surely limited, but on every
> > > spin_dump()->spin_lock() recursive call it does another
> > > round of
> > > 
> > > 	u64 loops = loops_per_jiffy * HZ;
> > > 
> > > 	for (i = 0; i < loops; i++) {
> > > 		if (arch_spin_trylock(&lock->raw_lock))
                       ^^^
		       this is a trylock.

> > > 			return;
> > > 		__delay(1);
> > > 	}
> > > 
> > > so if you have 1000 spin_dump()->spin_lock() then, well,
> > > something has been holding the lock for '1000 * loops_per_jiffy * HZ'.
> > 
> > Or the printk() is heavily called and the lock is congested.
> 
> well, isn't it the case that ticket-based locking assumes at least
> some sort of fairness? how many cpus do you have there? you can

It's true for a congestion between arch_spin_lock()s, not trylock(). And I
cannot remember how many online cpus there are, since I frequently change
the number. Sorry. But the range is from 2 to 4.

> have `num_online_cpus() - 1' tasks spinning on the spin lock and
> 1 owning the spin lock... if your lock is in correct state (no
> before/after spinlock debug errors) even most unlucky task should
> get the lock eventually...
> 
> 	-ss