From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753662AbbCGDKW (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:10:22 -0500
Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:47720 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753223AbbCGDKS (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:10:18 -0500
Message-ID: <1425697805.19505.92.camel@stgolabs.net>
Subject: Re: softlockups in multi_cpu_stop
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 19:10:05 -0800
In-Reply-To: <CACVXFVMsO1fvbQmsPMTvLmyNW=_cJzYPCtzACjYAuq4GcLn7kA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54F41516.6060608@oracle.com> <54F98F1F.3080107@oracle.com>
	 <20150306123233.GA9972@gmail.com> <1425662342.19505.41.camel@stgolabs.net>
	 <1425668223.2475.94.camel@j-VirtualBox>
	 <CA+55aFwZufdV5Q7Wm+b2F8KurtgXsJ_eNe9b6_TOSUhuW_GfSg@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1425670188.2475.113.camel@j-VirtualBox>
	 <1425676346.2475.135.camel@j-VirtualBox>
	 <1425680137.19505.63.camel@stgolabs.net>
	 <20150307095526.5ffb1bf0@tom-ThinkPad-T410>
	 <1425694046.19505.71.camel@stgolabs.net>
	 <CACVXFVPk9Jp1vaf12xSc4cpypbYd_3bcSVkKtarSpoiPNK_MNg@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1425695184.19505.79.camel@stgolabs.net>
	 <1425695363.19505.81.camel@stgolabs.net>
	 <CACVXFVMsO1fvbQmsPMTvLmyNW=_cJzYPCtzACjYAuq4GcLn7kA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 10:55 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 18:26 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> >> That's not what this is about. New lock _owners_ need to worry about
> >                                                       ^^^ make that "need not"
> 
> Sorry, could you explain a bit why new owner can't be scheduled
> out(on_cpu becomes zero)? If that is possible, it still can cause
> soft lockup like current problem.

Oh its not that it can't be scheduled out. The point is we don't care
what happens with the lock owner itself (new or not). We care about, and
the point of this discussion, how _other_ threads handle themselves when
trying to take that lock (a lock having an owner implies the lock is not
free, of course). So if a lock owner gets scheduled out... so what?
That's already taken into account by spinners.