From: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>,
Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@free-electrons.com>,
Mylene Josserand <mylene.josserand@free-electrons.com>
Subject: Re: mutex_lock issues during poweroff
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 16:43:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170908144307.vqb3tn5crs4ddqwg@flea.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170907124033.bmtsam7nizs7gnvv@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1906 bytes --]
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your answer.
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 02:40:33PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 02:16:19PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > One thing worth noting is that we couldn't reproduce the issue with a
> > 4.13. We can't bisect really easily due to the amount of patches that
> > we still have on 4.9 and have all been merged since, but it seems like
> > the bug was fixed (either on purpose or as a side effect), and was
> > never sent to stable. Looking at the history of kernel/locking/mutex.c
> > during that window didn't really show anything obvious though.
> >
> > If you have any ideas or spot something very wrong, I'd be happy to
> > hear about. Thanks!
>
> Well, we did a _complete_ rewrite of the mutex primitive in v4.10-rc1.
Ok.
What commit happened to be the rewrite? 9d659ae14b54 ("locking/mutex:
Add lock handoff to avoid starvation") ? We backported this one and
3ca0ff571b09 ("locking/mutex: Rework mutex::owner"), and still can
reproduce the issue. Is there any other?
> Part of the reason for that rewrite was fixing a starvation case, but
> for that you'd need to actually have contending usage, which you claim
> not to have.
Yeah, we're close to the opposite case :)
> Aside from that I really can't remember any specific issues with the old
> code (4.9 is such a long time ago). You could try to disable the
> optimistic spinning code, see if that helps.
>
> You did also say you were running on an ARM64, there were a few memory
> ordering fixes like for example commit:
>
> 50972fe78f24 ("locking/osq_lock: Fix osq_lock queue corruption")
We're running on ARM, not ARM64 (they still are separate architectures
under arch/, unlike x86), but I'll look into them too.
Thanks!
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-08 14:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-07 12:16 Maxime Ripard
2017-09-07 12:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-09-08 14:43 ` Maxime Ripard [this message]
2017-09-08 16:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=20170908144307.vqb3tn5crs4ddqwg@flea.lan \
--to=maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mylene.josserand@free-electrons.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=quentin.schulz@free-electrons.com \
--cc=thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®