From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC]: mutex: adaptive spin Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 17:56:15 +0100 Message-ID: <20090106165615.GA5168@elte.hu> References: <87r63ljzox.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <20090103191706.GA2002@parisc-linux.org> <1231093310.27690.5.camel@twins> <20090104184103.GE2002@parisc-linux.org> <1231242031.11687.97.camel@twins> <20090106121052.GA27232@elte.hu> <20090106165409.GA32608@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Matthew Wilcox , Andi Kleen , Chris Mason , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel , linux-btrfs , Thomas Gleixner , Steven Rostedt , Gregory Haskins , Nick Piggin To: Linus Torvalds Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090106165409.GA32608@elte.hu> List-ID: * Ingo Molnar wrote: > One thought: > > BUG_ON()'s do_exit() shows a slightly misleading failure pattern to > users: instead of a 'hanging' task, we'd get a misbehaving app due to > one of its tasks exiting spuriously. It can even go completely unnoticed > [users dont look at kernel logs normally] - while a hanging task > generally does get noticed. (because there's no progress in processing) > > So instead of the BUG_ON() we could emit a WARN_ONCE() perhaps, plus not > do any spinning and just block - resulting in an uninterruptible task > (that the user will probably notice) and a scary message in the syslog? > [all in the slowpath] And we'd strictly do an uninterruptible sleep here, unconditionally: even if this is within mutex_lock_interruptible() - we dont want a Ctrl-C or a SIGKILL to allow to 'break out' the app from the deadlock. Ingo