Commit fd6be105 authored by Tony Breeds's avatar Tony Breeds Committed by Ingo Molnar

mutex: Fix optimistic spinning vs. BKL

Currently, we can hit a nasty case with optimistic
spinning on mutexes:

    CPU A tries to take a mutex, while holding the BKL

    CPU B tried to take the BLK while holding the mutex

This looks like a AB-BA scenario but in practice, is
allowed and happens due to the auto-release on
schedule() nature of the BKL.

In that case, the optimistic spinning code can get us
into a situation where instead of going to sleep, A
will spin waiting for B who is spinning waiting for
A, and the only way out of that loop is the
need_resched() test in mutex_spin_on_owner().

This patch fixes it by completely disabling spinning
if we own the BKL. This adds one more detail to the
extensive list of reasons why it's a bad idea for
kernel code to be holding the BKL.
Signed-off-by: default avatarTony Breeds <tony@bakeyournoodle.com>
Acked-by: default avatarLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: default avatarPeter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: <stable@kernel.org>
LKML-Reference: <20100519054636.GC12389@ozlabs.org>
[ added an unlikely() attribute to the branch ]
Signed-off-by: default avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
parent 537b60d1
......@@ -171,6 +171,13 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
for (;;) {
struct thread_info *owner;
/*
* If we own the BKL, then don't spin. The owner of
* the mutex might be waiting on us to release the BKL.
*/
if (unlikely(current->lock_depth >= 0))
break;
/*
* If there's an owner, wait for it to either
* release the lock or go to sleep.
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment