Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] muptiple bugs in PI futexes | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Date | Tue, 05 Jun 2007 20:48:26 +0200 |
| |
On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 21:39 +0400, Alexey Kuznetsov wrote: > Hello! > > > Hmm, what means not expected ? -ESRCH is returned, when the owner task > > is not found. > > This is not supposed to happen with robust futexes.
Hmm, right.
> > This does not really explain, why you do prevent the -ESRCH return value > > in the next cycle, > > Because right curval is refetched, it already has FUTEX_OWNER_DIED bit set > and we succesfully take the lock.
Ok, handle_futex_death() is punching the OWNER_DIED bit into the futex without the hash bucket lock. We might as well grab the hash bucket lock right there to avoid this. I look for a sane solution.
> > The rtmutex code only returns -EDEADLK, when the lock is already held by > > the task > > This case.
Sorry, I was not clear here: not the user space lock, the rtmutex must be held or a deadlock situation against another rtmutex must be detected. There is no way that the exiting code assigns the owner ship of the rtmutex. It solely calls rtmutex_unlock() which makes the highest priority waiter the _PENDING_ owner, which means the pending owner needs to acquire it for real.
> You need run only tst-robustpi8 in loop. It should be triggered quickly, > a few of minutes on 8-way smp here.
My largest box is a 4 way and it runs since hours in a while true loop.
> If you want, I can insert some debugging printks, which you need, > and run the test here.
I fix up some things in the code first and then I'll add a couple of debugs to nail this EDEADLK problem.
tglx
- 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/
| |