[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] 3.2.9-rt16
On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 11:20 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Dear RT Folks,
> I'm pleased to announce the 3.2.9-rt16 release.
> Changes vs. 3.2.9-rt15:
> * cpu hotplug lock init fix [ Steven ]
> * seqlock fix CONFIG typo

Note, yesterday while running some stress tests I hit a live lock here:

static inline struct dentry *dentry_kill(struct dentry *dentry, int ref)
struct inode *inode;
struct dentry *parent;

inode = dentry->d_inode;
if (inode && !spin_trylock(&inode->i_lock)) {
return dentry; /* try again with same dentry */
if (IS_ROOT(dentry))
parent = NULL;
parent = dentry->d_parent;
if (parent && !seq_spin_trylock(&parent->d_lock)) {
if (inode)
goto relock;

When it fails to grab either the inode->i_lock or the parent->d_lock it
returns back to dput() and dput() will retry. We get into another one of
these cases where we can spin blocking the holder of the locks.

I experimented with adding a grab lock of the inode->i_lock or
parent->d_lock if they existed (required initializing parent to NULL),
which seemed to help a lot, but then eventually it locked up. As I'm not
sure its safe to grab them straight here even after we release the
dentry->d_lock. I'll have to enable full lockdep to see if this breaks
the ordering.

I haven't looked too deeply into this code yet, but I'm assuming that
dput() can be called where we can't just take the inode or parent lock?

-- Steve

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-06 14:53    [W:0.048 / U:2.768 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site