From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
git-commits-head@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Exiting with locks still held (was Re: [PATCH] kmemleak: Fix scheduling-while-atomic bug)
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:06:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1246539963.13320.91.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <84144f020907020554n1b098e28o8b4a4a58a08728e3@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 15:54 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Catalin Marinas<catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > It could be but I can't figure out a solution. If there is only one task
> > opening and closing the kmemleak file, everything is fine. In
> > combination with shell piping I think I get the kmemleak file descriptor
> > released from a different task than the one that opened it.
> >
> > For example, the badly written code below opens kmemleak and acquires
> > the scan_mutex in the parent task but releases it in the child (it needs
> > a few tries to trigger it). With waitpid() in parent everything is fine.
[...]
> Well, you are not supposed to hold on to locks when returning from a
> system call ("sys_open") anyway. You can probably do the exclusion
> with a kmemcheck specific flag?
Acquiring the mutex in "open" and releasing it in "release" was easier.
I'll see if I can move the mutex to the seq_read functions which
actually need it.
--
Catalin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-07-02 13:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <200907010300.n6130rRf026194@hera.kernel.org>
2009-07-01 7:53 ` [PATCH] kmemleak: Fix scheduling-while-atomic bug Ingo Molnar
2009-07-01 8:10 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-07-01 9:18 ` Catalin Marinas
2009-07-01 9:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-07-01 9:46 ` Catalin Marinas
2009-07-01 11:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-07-02 12:48 ` Exiting with locks still held (was Re: [PATCH] kmemleak: Fix scheduling-while-atomic bug) Catalin Marinas
2009-07-02 12:54 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-07-02 13:06 ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2009-07-02 14:13 ` Catalin Marinas
2009-07-02 17:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-07-03 10:18 ` Catalin Marinas
2009-07-03 7:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-07-02 9:48 ` [PATCH] kmemleak: Fix scheduling-while-atomic bug Catalin Marinas
2009-07-03 7:00 ` [PATCH] kmemleak: Mark nice +10 Ingo Molnar
2009-07-03 8:09 ` Catalin Marinas
2009-07-08 13:33 ` [PATCH] kmemleak: Fix scheduling-while-atomic bug Catalin Marinas
2009-08-23 2:48 ` Ming Lei
2009-08-23 14:59 ` Catalin Marinas
2009-08-24 0:10 ` Ming Lei
2009-08-24 10:02 ` ACPI scheduling while atomic (was: Re: [PATCH] kmemleak: Fix scheduling-while-atomic bug) Catalin Marinas
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1246539963.13320.91.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=git-commits-head@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome