On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 08:12 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 4:46 AM, Jan Stancek wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm running reproducer with this patch applied on 3 systems:
> > - two s390x systems where this can be reproduced within seconds
> > - x86_64 Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5240 @ 3.00G
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 4:46 AM, Jan Stancek wrote:
>
>
> I'm running reproducer with this patch applied on 3 systems:
> - two s390x systems where this can be reproduced within seconds
> - x86_64 Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5240 @ 3.00GHz, where I could
> reproduce it on average in ~3 minutes.
>
> It's
Larry Woodman"
> Sent: Wednesday, 9 April, 2014 12:30:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] futex: avoid race between requeue and wake
>
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Jan Stancek wrote:
> >
> > I ran reproducer with following change on s390x system, where this
> &g
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 07:41 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 03:30:07PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > So I'll have to leave this decision to the futex people. But the
> > attached slightly more complex patch *may* be the better one.
>
> Of course, tglx is the main futex '
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 03:30:07PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So I'll have to leave this decision to the futex people. But the
> attached slightly more complex patch *may* be the better one.
Of course, tglx is the main futex 'people' and he's not on CC.. *sigh*.
--
To unsubscribe from this lis
Adding Thomas to the thread.
Sorry for the late reply, I was out running errands all day just to get
home to find this futex jewel in my inbox.
On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 15:30 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Jan Stancek wrote:
> >
> > I ran reproducer with following ch
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Jan Stancek wrote:
>
> I ran reproducer with following change on s390x system, where this
> can be reproduced usually within seconds:
>
> diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c
> index 67dacaf..9150ffd 100644
> --- a/kernel/futex.c
> +++ b/kernel/futex.c
> @@
ot;Larry Woodman"
> Sent: Tuesday, 8 April, 2014 8:53:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] futex: avoid race between requeue and wake
>
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:33:55AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> H
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:33:55AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> Hmm. And let's think about that powerpc race, where "spin_is_locked()"
>> can be false when somebody is waiting to get the lock..
>
> Right; so in the original discussion I n
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:33:55AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Hmm. And let's think about that powerpc race, where "spin_is_locked()"
> can be false when somebody is waiting to get the lock..
Right; so in the original discussion I never really got to why that is a
problem. A pending waiter cann
- Original Message -
> From: "Linus Torvalds"
> To: "Jan Stancek"
> Cc: "Linux Kernel Mailing List" , "Srikar
> Dronamraju" ,
> "Davidlohr Bueso" , "Ingo Molnar" ,
> "Larry Woodman"
> Sent:
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> However, one exception to this is "requeue_futex()". Which is in fact
> the test-case that Jan points to. There, when we move a futex from one
> hash bucket to another, we do the increment inside the spinlock.
>
> So I think the change is c
Davidlohr, comments?
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Jan Stancek wrote:
> pthread_cond_broadcast/4-1.c testcase from openposix testsuite (LTP)
> occasionally fails, because some threads fail to wake up.
Jan, I _assume_ this is on x86(-64), but can you please confirm?
Because if it's on anything
13 matches
Mail list logo
