lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [BUG] long freezes on thinkpad t60


On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > If somebody can actually come up with a sequence where we have
> > spinlock starvation, and it's not about an example of bad locking, and
> > nobody really can come up with any other way to fix it, we may
> > eventually have to add the notion of "fair spinlocks".
>
> there was one bad case i can remember: the spinlock debugging code had a
> trylock open-coded loop and on certain Opterons CPUs were starving each
> other.

But this is a perfect example of exactly what I'm talking about:

THAT CODE IS HORRIBLY BUGGY!

It's not the spinlocks that are broken, it's that damn code.

> for (;;) {
> for (i = 0; i < loops; i++) {
> if (__raw_write_trylock(&lock->raw_lock))
> return;
> __delay(1);
> }

What a piece of crap.

Anybody who ever waits for a lock by busy-looping over it is BUGGY,
dammit!

The only correct way to wait for a lock is:

(a) try it *once* with an atomic r-m-w
(b) loop over just _reading_ it (and something that implies a memory
barrier, _not_ "__delay()". Use "cpu_relax()" or "smp_rmb()")
(c) rinse and repeat.

and code like the above should just be shot on sight.

So don't blame the spinlocks or the hardware for crap code.

Linus
-
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: 2007-06-21 22:19    [W:1.298 / U:0.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site