On Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Zhu Jefferry wrote:
> Besides the application did not check the return value, the mutex_unlock in
> Libc did not check the return value from kernel neither.
That's even worse.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Zhu Jefferry wrote:
> > > > 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
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Zhu Jefferry wrote:
> > > 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 w
> 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 mute
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
> > I assume your pseudo code set_waiter_bit is mapped to the real code
> > "futex_lock_pi_atomic", It's possible for futex_lock_pi_atomic to
> > successfully set FUTEX_WAITERS bit, but return with Page fault, for
> > example, like fail in lookup_pi_state().
>
> No. It's not. lookup_pi_state() can
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Zhu Jefferry wrote:
> Thanks for your detail guideline and explanations. Please see my questions
> in-line.
Please trim the reply to the relevant sections. It's annoying if I
have to search your replies inside of useless quoted text.
> > -Original Message-
> > From
.@linutronix.de
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] futex: lower the lock contention on the HB lock
> during wake up
>
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Zhu Jefferry wrote:
>
> Please configure your e-mail client proper and follow the basic rules:
>
> - Choose a meaningful subject for your qu
ht of
the window containing it, not all do.
For the sentence above I need a 190 character wide display
- Do not use colors or other gimmicks. They just make the mail
unreadable in simple text based readers.
> Just in the list, I see the patch "[PATCH v2] futex: lower the lock
>
Hi
Just in the list, I see the patch "[PATCH v2] futex: lower the lock contention
on the HB lock during wake up" at
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2199938?search_string=futex;#2199938.
But I see another patch with same name, different co
On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 16:28 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 06/17/2015 04:17 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 10:33 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> >> wake_futex_pi() wakes the task before releasing the hash bucket lock
> >> (HB). The first thing the woken
Thomas Gleixner writes:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2015, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
>> A handful of boot test failures on ARM/OMAP were found by kernelci.org
>> in next-20150619[1] and were bisected down to this patch, which hit
>> next-20150619 in the
On Fri, 19 Jun 2015, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> A handful of boot test failures on ARM/OMAP were found by kernelci.org
> in next-20150619[1] and were bisected down to this patch, which hit
> next-20150619 in the form of commit 881bd58d6e9e (fu
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
wrote:
> wake_futex_pi() wakes the task before releasing the hash bucket lock
> (HB). The first thing the woken up task usually does is to acquire the
> lock which requires the HB lock. On SMP Systems this leads to blocking
> on the HB loc
On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 16:28 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 06/17/2015 04:17 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 10:33 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> >> wake_futex_pi() wakes the task before releasing the hash bucket lock
> >> (HB). The first thing the woken
On 06/17/2015 04:17 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 10:33 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> wake_futex_pi() wakes the task before releasing the hash bucket lock
>> (HB). The first thing the woken up task usually does is to acquire the
>> lock which requires the HB lock. O
On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 10:33 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> wake_futex_pi() wakes the task before releasing the hash bucket lock
> (HB). The first thing the woken up task usually does is to acquire the
> lock which requires the HB lock. On SMP Systems this leads to blocking
> on the HB lo
wake_futex_pi() wakes the task before releasing the hash bucket lock
(HB). The first thing the woken up task usually does is to acquire the
lock which requires the HB lock. On SMP Systems this leads to blocking
on the HB lock which is released by the owner shortly after.
This patch rearranges the u
18 matches
Mail list logo
