lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Sep]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm:Avoid soft lockup due to possible attempt of double locking object's lock in __delete_object
From
Date
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]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-09-17 09:58    [W:0.059 / U:0.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site