From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Neil Horman Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] spinlock: split out debugging check from spin_lock_mutex Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:44:43 -0400 Message-ID: <20130423134443.GB5564@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> References: <20130412184542.GB19966@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <51690AAB.1030102@acm.org> <20130415141610.GA3505@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20130416172454.GC9241@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20130418192912.GB29130@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20130422201246.GA20687@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20130423132345.GA5564@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar To: Bart Van Assche Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:50431 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751312Ab3DWNou (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:44:50 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 06:38:19AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 6:23 AM, Neil Horman wrote: > > > Copy that. I can propose this change based on my own testing, or wait for > > you > > to get back. Do you have a preference? > > > > It will take until next week before I can run more tests. It depends on > whether a fix can wait that long ? > > Bart. Dave, how do you feel about it? I'm comfortable with the wait queue change I've proposed, but I've not received any reports of actual netpoll deadlocks (i.e. the mutex solution is reporting a warning, but no actual problems). So I think its safe to wait a bit longer, unless you just want this squared away now. FWIw, I think theres still some discussion to be had about the possibility of converting mutexes to use spin_lock_irqsave internally, thereby making mutex_trylock irq safe, but I think we can deal with that independently of this issue. Regards Neil