lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 45/88] rcu: Add memory barriers for NOCB leader wakeup
On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 02:28:14PM -0700, Krister Johansen wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 01:55:00PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 01:11:48PM -0700, Krister Johansen wrote:
> > > May I impose upon you to CC this patch to stable, and tag it as fixing
> > > abedf8e241? I ran into this on a production 4.9 branch. When I
> > > debugged it, I discovered that it went all the way back to 4.6. The
> > > tl;dr is that at least for some environments, the missed wakeup
> > > manifests itself as a series of hung-task warnings to console and if I'm
> > > unlucky it can also generate a hang that can block interactive logins
> > > via ssh.
> >
> > Interesting! This is the first that I have heard that this was anything
> > other than a theoretical bug. To the comment in your second URL, it is
> > wise to recall that a seismologist was in fact arrested for failing to
> > predict an earthquake. Later acquitted/pardoned/whatever, but arrested
> > nonetheless. ;-)
>
> Point taken. I do realize that we all make mistakes, and certainly I do
> too.

Indeed! Let's just say that the author of that email will have no
trouble returning the favor, and sooner rather than later. ;-)

> Perhaps I should have said that my survey of current callers of
> swake_up() was enough to convince me that I didn't have an immediate
> problem elsewhere, but that I'm not familiar enough with the code base
> to make that statement with a lot of authority. The concern being that if
> the patch came from RT-linux where the barrier was present in
> swake_up(), are there other places where swake_up() callers still assume
> this is being handled on their behalf?
>
> As part of this, I also pondered whether I should add a comment around
> swake_up(), similar to what's already there for waitqueue_active.
> I wasn't sure how subtle this is for other consumers, though.

In my case, I assume I need barriers for swake_up(), which is why I
found this bug by inspection. Still, I wouldn't mind a comment.
Others might have other opinions.

> > Silliness aside, does my patch actually fix your problem in practice as
> > well as in theory? If so, may I have your Tested-by?
>
> Yes, it absolutely does. Consider it given:
>
> Tested-by: Krister Johansen <kjlx@templeofstupid.com>

Thank you!!!

Thanx, Paul

> > Impressive investigative effort, by the way!
>
> Thanks!
>
> -K
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-06-12 01:38    [W:0.166 / U:0.344 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site