Re: [PATCH] atomic: Fix _atomic_dec_and_lock() deadlock on UP

From: Valerie Aurora
Date: Mon Jun 15 2009 - 15:12:45 EST

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:45:43AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:11:13 -0400
> Valerie Aurora <vaurora@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > _atomic_dec_and_lock() can deadlock on UP with spinlock debugging
> > enabled. Currently, on UP we unconditionally spin_lock() first, which
> > calls __spin_lock_debug(), which takes the lock unconditionally even
> > on UP. This will deadlock in situations in which we call
> > atomic_dec_and_lock() knowing that the counter won't go to zero
> > (because we hold another reference) and that we already hold the lock.
> > Instead, we should use the SMP code path which only takes the lock if
> > necessary.
> Yup, I have this queued for 2.6.31 as
> atomic-only-take-lock-when-the-counter-drops-to-zero-on-up-as-well.patch,
> with a different changelog:
> _atomic_dec_and_lock() should not unconditionally take the lock before
> calling atomic_dec_and_test() in the UP case. For consistency reasons it
> should behave exactly like in the SMP case.
> Besides that this works around the problem that with CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK
> this spins in __spin_lock_debug() if the lock is already taken even if the
> counter doesn't drop to 0.
> Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <jblunck@xxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> I can't remember why we decided that 2.6.30 doesn't need this.

Great, last I heard the changelog was still a problem. Thanks,

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at