Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm:Avoid soft lockup due to possible attempt of double locking object's lock in __delete_object | From | Rik van Riel <> | Date | Tue, 06 Sep 2016 20:45:19 -0400 |
| |
On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 09:24 -0400, nick wrote: > > On 2016-08-31 03:54 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:35:12PM -0400, Nicholas Krause wrote: > > > This fixes a issue in the current locking logic of the function, > > > __delete_object where we are trying to attempt to lock the passed > > > object structure's spinlock again after being previously held > > > elsewhere by the kmemleak code. Fix this by instead of assuming > > > we are the only one contending for the object's lock their are > > > possible other users and create two branches, one where we get > > > the lock when calling spin_trylock_irqsave on the object's lock > > > and the other when the lock is held else where by kmemleak. > > > > Have you actually got a deadlock that requires this fix? > > > Yes I have got a deadlock that this does fix.
Why don't you share the backtrace with us?
Claiming you have a deadlock, but not sharing it on the list means nobody can see what the problem is you are trying to address.
It would be good if every email with a patch that you post starts with an actual detailed problem description.
Can you do that?
--
All Rights Reversed.[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |