From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Zhu Jefferry <Jefferry.Zhu@freescale.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"bigeasy@linutronix.de" <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] futex: lower the lock contention on the HB lock during wake up
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 12:22:09 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1509161201210.3951@nanos> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BN3PR0301MB12191CB15FDC7DE244319A09835B0@BN3PR0301MB1219.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Zhu Jefferry wrote:
> The application is a multi-thread program, to use the pairs of mutex_lock and
> mutex_unlock to protect the shared data structure. The type of this mutex
> is PTHREAD_MUTEX_PI_RECURSIVE_NP. After running long time, to say several days,
> the mutex_lock data structure in user space looks like corrupt.
>
> thread 0 can do mutex_lock/unlock
> __lock = this thread | FUTEX_WAITERS
> __owner = 0, should be this thread
The kernel does not know about __owner.
> __counter keep increasing, although there is no recursive mutex_lock call.
>
> thread 1 will be stuck
>
> The primary debugging shows the content of __lock is wrong in first. After a call of
> Mutex_unlock, the value of __lock should not be this thread self. But we observed
> The value of __lock is still self after unlock. So, other threads will be stuck,
How did you observe that?
> This thread could lock due to recursive type and __counter keep increasing,
> although mutex_unlock return fails, due to the wrong value of __owner,
> but the application did not check the return value. So the thread 0 looks
> like fine. But thread 1 will be stuck forever.
Oh well. So thread 0 looks all fine, despite not checking return
values.
Thanks,
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-16 10:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-15 1:26 Zhu Jefferry
2015-09-16 0:01 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-09-16 0:17 ` Zhu Jefferry
2015-09-16 8:06 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-09-16 9:52 ` Zhu Jefferry
2015-09-16 10:22 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2015-09-16 11:13 ` Zhu Jefferry
2015-09-16 13:39 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-09-16 23:57 ` Zhu Jefferry
2015-09-17 7:08 ` Thomas Gleixner
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-05-19 17:24 [PATCH -tip 0/4] rtmutex: Spin on owner Davidlohr Bueso
2015-05-19 17:24 ` [PATCH 1/4] locking/rtmutex: Implement lockless top-waiter wakeup Davidlohr Bueso
2015-06-16 19:29 ` [PATCH] futex: lower the lock contention on the HB lock during wake up Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-06-16 19:50 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-06-17 8:33 ` [PATCH v2] " Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-06-17 14:17 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-06-17 14:28 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-06-17 14:31 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-06-21 4:35 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-06-19 17:51 ` Kevin Hilman
2015-06-19 18:54 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-06-19 19:32 ` Kevin Hilman
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=alpine.DEB.2.11.1509161201210.3951@nanos \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=Jefferry.Zhu@freescale.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®