Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > Jeroen Van den Keybus wrote:
> > > Gilles,
> > >
> > >
> > > I cannot reproduce those messages after turning nucleus debugging on.
> > > Instead, I now either get relatively more failing mutexes or even hard
> > > lockups with the test program I sent to you. If the computer didn't
> crash,
> > > dmesg contains 3 Xenomai messages relating to a task being movend to
> > > secondary domain after exception #14. As when the computer crashes: I
> have
> > > written the last kernel panic message on a paper. Please tell if you want
> > > also the addresses or (part of) the call stack.
> > >
> > > I'm still wondering if there's a programming error in the mutex test
> > > program. After I sent my previous message, and before I turned nucleus
> > > debugging on, I managed (by reducing the sleeptimes to max. 5.0e4) to
> > > fatally crash the computer, while spewing out countless 'scheduling while
> > > atomic messages'. Is the mutex error reproducible ?
> >
> > I was not able to crash my box or generate that scheduler warnings, but
> > the attached patch fixes the false positive warnings of unlocked
> > mutexes. We had a "leak" in the unlock path when someone was already
> > waiting. Anyway, *this* issues should not have caused any other problems
> > then the wrong report of rt_mutex_inquire().
>
> Actually the patch seem insufficient, the whole block :
> {
> xnsynch_set_owner(&mutex->synch_base,&task->thread_base);
> mutex->owner = task;
> mutex->lockcnt = 1;
> goto unlock_and_exit;
> }
>
> should be done after xnsynch_sleep_on in rt_mutex_lock.
> Damn, of course - except for "mutex->owner = task". Then this missing xnsync_set_owner() may have caused serious issues? Will test... Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
