summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/include/xen
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorTony Breeds2010-05-19 07:46:36 +0200
committerIngo Molnar2010-05-19 08:18:44 +0200
commitfd6be105b883244127a734ac9f14ae94a022dcc0 (patch)
tree9fc86c2827813379274522bdc92dd71538d207e5 /include/xen
parentMerge branch 'x86-uv-for-linus' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/... (diff)
downloadkernel-qcow2-linux-fd6be105b883244127a734ac9f14ae94a022dcc0.tar.gz
kernel-qcow2-linux-fd6be105b883244127a734ac9f14ae94a022dcc0.tar.xz
kernel-qcow2-linux-fd6be105b883244127a734ac9f14ae94a022dcc0.zip
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: Tony Breeds <tony@bakeyournoodle.com> Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Acked-by: Peter 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: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Diffstat (limited to 'include/xen')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions