From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
To: Sebastian Sewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Stefan Liebler <stli@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: WARN_ON_ONCE(!new_owner) within wake_futex_pi() triggerede
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2019 17:12:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190201161227.GG3770@osiris> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190131170653.spnrxsiblkssleyd@linutronix.de>
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 06:06:53PM +0100, Sebastian Sewior wrote:
> On 2019-01-31 17:52:28 [+0100], Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > ...nevertheless Stefan and I looked through the lovely disassembly of
> > _pthread_mutex_lock_full() to verify if the compiler barriers are
> > actually doing what they are supposed to do. The generated code
> > however does look correct.
> > So, it must be something different.
>
> would it make sense to use one locking function instead all three (lock,
> try-lock, timed) in the test case to figure out if this is related to
> one of the locking function?
I tried all three variants, but it seems to be close to impossible to
re-create then. I had a single fail when using only the trylock
variant, but I wouldn't say that means anything.
Only if all three variants run in parallel it seems to be quite
reliably reproducible, even though sometimes it still takes an hour.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-01 16:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-27 8:11 WARN_ON_ONCE(!new_owner) within wake_futex_pi() triggered Heiko Carstens
2018-11-28 14:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-11-29 11:23 ` Heiko Carstens
2019-01-21 12:21 ` Heiko Carstens
2019-01-21 13:12 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-01-22 21:14 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-01-23 9:24 ` Heiko Carstens
2019-01-23 12:33 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-01-23 12:40 ` Heiko Carstens
2019-01-28 13:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-28 13:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-28 15:53 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-01-29 8:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-29 22:15 ` [PATCH] futex: Handle early deadlock return correctly Thomas Gleixner
2019-01-30 12:01 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-02-08 12:05 ` [tip:locking/urgent] " tip-bot for Thomas Gleixner
2019-01-29 9:01 ` WARN_ON_ONCE(!new_owner) within wake_futex_pi() triggered Heiko Carstens
2019-01-29 9:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-29 9:45 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-01-29 10:24 ` Heiko Carstens
2019-01-29 10:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-29 13:03 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-01-29 13:23 ` Heiko Carstens
[not found] ` <20190129151058.GG26906@osiris>
2019-01-29 17:16 ` Sebastian Sewior
2019-01-29 21:45 ` Thomas Gleixner
[not found] ` <20190130094913.GC5299@osiris>
2019-01-30 12:15 ` Thomas Gleixner
[not found] ` <20190130125955.GD5299@osiris>
2019-01-30 13:24 ` Sebastian Sewior
2019-01-30 13:29 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-01-30 14:33 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-01-30 17:56 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-01-30 21:07 ` Sebastian Sewior
2019-01-30 23:13 ` WARN_ON_ONCE(!new_owner) within wake_futex_pi() triggerede Thomas Gleixner
2019-01-30 23:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-30 23:55 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-01-31 0:27 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-01-31 1:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-31 16:52 ` Heiko Carstens
2019-01-31 17:06 ` Sebastian Sewior
2019-01-31 20:42 ` Heiko Carstens
2019-02-01 16:12 ` Heiko Carstens [this message]
2019-02-01 21:59 ` Thomas Gleixner
[not found] ` <20190202091043.GA3381@osiris>
2019-02-02 10:14 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-02-02 11:20 ` Heiko Carstens
2019-02-03 16:30 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-02-04 11:40 ` Heiko Carstens
2019-01-31 1:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-30 13:25 ` WARN_ON_ONCE(!new_owner) within wake_futex_pi() triggered Thomas Gleixner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190201161227.GG3770@osiris \
--to=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=stli@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).