[lkml]   [2000]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
George Anzinger wrote:
> The notion of releasing a spin lock by initializing it seems IMHO, on
> the face of it, way off. Firstly the protected area is no longer
> protected which could lead to undefined errors/ crashes and secondly,
> any future use of spinlocks to control preemption could have a lot of
> trouble with this, principally because the locker is unknown.
> In the case at hand, it would seem that an unlocked path to the console
> is a more correct answer that gives the system a far better chance of
> actually remaining viable.

Does bust_spinlocks() muck up the preemptive kernel's spinlock
counting? Would you prefer spin_trylock()/spin_unlock()?
It doesn't matter - if we call bust_spinlocks() the kernel is
known to be dead meat and there is a fsck in your near future.

We are still trying to find out why kumon@fujitsu's 8-way is
crashing on the test10-pre5 sched.c. Looks like it's fixed
in test11-pre2 but we want to know _why_ it's fixed. And at
present each time he hits the bug, his printk() deadlocks.

So bust_spinlocks() is a RAS feature :) A very important one -
it's terrible when your one-in-a-trillion bug happens and there
are no diagnostics.

It's a work-in-progress. There are a lot of things which
can cause printk to deadlock:

- console_lock
- timerlist_lock
- global_irq_lock (console code does global_cli)
- log_wait.lock
- tasklist_lock (printk does wake_up) (*)
- runqueue_lock (printk does wake_up)

I'll be proposing a better patch for this in a few days.

(*) Keith: this explains why you can't do a printk() in
__wake_up_common: printk calls wake_up(). Duh.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [W:0.039 / U:0.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site