On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 08:32:46PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:

>                     double unlock:
> ------------[ cut here ]------------
> kernel BUG at 
> /home/mhiramat/ksrc/linux-3/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h:137!

> Call Trace:
>  [<ffffffff81114a59>] __raw_callee_save___pv_queued_spin_unlock+0x11/0x1e
>  [<ffffffff81117133>] ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0xfa/0x10c
>  [<ffffffff817cd3f7>] _raw_spin_unlock+0x44/0x64
>  [<ffffffff814603ee>] double_unlock_spin+0x3d/0x46

Cute, but somewhat expected. A double unlock really is a BUG and the PV
spinlock code cannot deal with it.

Do we want to make double unlock non-fatal unconditionally?

---
 kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h | 9 ++++++++-
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h 
b/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
index 04ab18151cc8..172deeaf1311 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
+++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
@@ -286,15 +286,22 @@ __visible void __pv_queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock 
*lock)
 {
        struct __qspinlock *l = (void *)lock;
        struct pv_node *node;
+       u8 locked;
 
        /*
         * We must not unlock if SLOW, because in that case we must first
         * unhash. Otherwise it would be possible to have multiple @lock
         * entries, which would be BAD.
         */
-       if (likely(cmpxchg(&l->locked, _Q_LOCKED_VAL, 0) == _Q_LOCKED_VAL))
+       locked = cmpxchg(&l->locked, _Q_LOCKED_VAL, 0);
+       if (likely(locked == _Q_LOCKED_VAL))
                return;
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKING_API_SELFTESTS
+       if (unlikely(!locked))
+               return;
+#endif
+
        /*
         * Since the above failed to release, this must be the SLOW path.
         * Therefore start by looking up the blocked node and unhashing it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to