lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Mar]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 4/4] ipc: sem: do not hold ipc lock more than necessary
On 03/20/2013 10:27 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 03/05/2013 04:36 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
>> @@ -1476,8 +1539,8 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(semtimedop, int, semid, struct
>> sembuf __user *, tsops,
>> queue.sleeper = current;
>>
>> sleep_again:
>> - current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE;
>> sem_unlock(sma);
>> + current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE;
>>
>> if (timeout)
>> jiffies_left = schedule_timeout(jiffies_left);
>
> After modifying my test case to start with a semaphore value of 1 on
> every semaphore, and do down followed by up (to have only one process
> take each semaphore at a time), I started seeing lost wakeups and the
> test case being stuck.
>
> I believe the change above is the cause of that issue.
>
> By unlocking before setting current->state to TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE,
> there is a small window where the next lock holder can grab the
> lock and wake us up, before we set ourselves to TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE
> and go to sleep.
>
> I have reverted your change in my code and am building a test kernel
> now.
>
> If things work, I'll clean up the whole patch series for a re-posting
> today.

Half a billion semaphore operations later, I am pretty sure
the above was the cause of the semaphore hangups we both
observed :)

I am currently building a kernel with the cleaned up patch
series I put together while building the previous test kernel.

If all goes well, expect a patch series after lunch...

--
All rights reversed


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-03-20 17:41    [W:0.069 / U:0.204 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site