Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> George Anzinger wrote:
> >
> > The notion of releasing a spin lock by initializing it seems IMHO, on
> > the face of it, way off. Firstly the protected area is no longer
> > protected which could lead to undefined errors/ crashes and secondly,
> > any future use of spinlocks to control preemption could have a lot of
> > trouble with this, principally because the locker is unknown.
> >
> > In the case at hand, it would seem that an unlocked path to the console
> > is a more correct answer that gives the system a far better chance of
> > actually remaining viable.
> >
>
> Does bust_spinlocks() muck up the preemptive kernel's spinlock
> counting? Would you prefer spin_trylock()/spin_unlock()?
> It doesn't matter - if we call bust_spinlocks() the kernel is
> known to be dead meat and there is a fsck in your near future.
>
> We are still trying to find out why kumon@fujitsu's 8-way is
> crashing on the test10-pre5 sched.c. Looks like it's fixed
> in test11-pre2 but we want to know _why_ it's fixed. And at
> present each time he hits the bug, his printk() deadlocks.
>
> So bust_spinlocks() is a RAS feature :) A very important one -
> it's terrible when your one-in-a-trillion bug happens and there
> are no diagnostics.
>
> It's a work-in-progress. There are a lot of things which
> can cause printk to deadlock:
>
> - console_lock
> - timerlist_lock
> - global_irq_lock (console code does global_cli)
> - log_wait.lock
> - tasklist_lock (printk does wake_up) (*)
> - runqueue_lock (printk does wake_up)
>
> I'll be proposing a better patch for this in a few days.
Hmm. I would like to suggest we look at non locking variants of
things. i.e. Data structure version changing with swap.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
