Re: mutex_lock issues during poweroff
From: Maxime Ripard
Date: Fri Sep 08 2017 - 10:43:24 EST
Thanks for your answer.
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 02:40:33PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 02:16:19PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > One thing worth noting is that we couldn't reproduce the issue with a
> > 4.13. We can't bisect really easily due to the amount of patches that
> > we still have on 4.9 and have all been merged since, but it seems like
> > the bug was fixed (either on purpose or as a side effect), and was
> > never sent to stable. Looking at the history of kernel/locking/mutex.c
> > during that window didn't really show anything obvious though.
> > If you have any ideas or spot something very wrong, I'd be happy to
> > hear about. Thanks!
> Well, we did a _complete_ rewrite of the mutex primitive in v4.10-rc1.
What commit happened to be the rewrite? 9d659ae14b54 ("locking/mutex:
Add lock handoff to avoid starvation") ? We backported this one and
3ca0ff571b09 ("locking/mutex: Rework mutex::owner"), and still can
reproduce the issue. Is there any other?
> Part of the reason for that rewrite was fixing a starvation case, but
> for that you'd need to actually have contending usage, which you claim
> not to have.
Yeah, we're close to the opposite case :)
> Aside from that I really can't remember any specific issues with the old
> code (4.9 is such a long time ago). You could try to disable the
> optimistic spinning code, see if that helps.
> You did also say you were running on an ARM64, there were a few memory
> ordering fixes like for example commit:
> 50972fe78f24 ("locking/osq_lock: Fix osq_lock queue corruption")
We're running on ARM, not ARM64 (they still are separate architectures
under arch/, unlike x86), but I'll look into them too.
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
Description: PGP signature