lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Recursion bug in -rt
Date
Dinakar,
can you try patch-2.6.15-rc7-rt3-rf1 on
http://source.mvista.com/~dsingleton/ and see if it works for your
tests?

This new patch creates a 'futex_deadlock' semaphore that we hang
applications that
are deadlocking themselves. This method will only hang the
application, not the system,
as no other locks are held, like the mmap_sem, just the futex_deadlock
semaphore.

NOTE: for pthread_mutexes that are robust but NOT POSIX priority
inheriting I return -EWOULDDEADLOCK,
since there is no POSIX specfication for robust pthread_mutexes yet.
POSIX PI pthread_mutexes will hang
on the futex_deadlock semaphore.

Let me know how it works.

David




On Dec 20, 2005, at 7:50 AM, Dinakar Guniguntala wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 02:19:56PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> hm, i'm looking at -rf4 - these changes look fishy:
>>
>> - _raw_spin_lock(&lock_owner(lock)->task->pi_lock);
>> + if (current != lock_owner(lock)->task)
>> + _raw_spin_lock(&lock_owner(lock)->task->pi_lock);
>>
>> why is this done?
>>
>
> Ingo, this is to prevent a kernel hang due to application error.
>
> Basically when an application does a pthread_mutex_lock twice on a
> _nonrecursive_ mutex with robust/PI attributes the whole system hangs.
> Ofcourse the application clearly should not be doing anything like
> that, but it should not end up hanging the system either
>
> -Dinakar
>

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-01-03 03:00    [W:0.135 / U:1.632 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site