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

[Andrew Morton]

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.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/