Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1199071 > unrolled thread

Re: HARD LOCKUP: Strange hard lock up on spin_lock(&sighand->siglock);

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: HARD LOCKUP: Strange hard lock up on  spin_lock(&sighand->siglock); Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-08-03 19:10 +0200

#1199071 — Re: HARD LOCKUP: Strange hard lock up on spin_lock(&sighand->siglock);

Sorry for delay, vacation.

I'll try to re-read your email later, just one note for now...

On 07/27, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
> Based on that I think could be happening is that the sighand itself is
> being freed while we are in the grace period inside __lock_task_sighand
> but the slab page itself is not freed as per the semantics of
> SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU. I looked up the source of this function in the
> latest kernels and saw that Oleg had put a comment clarifying the
> semantics but I'm still not convinced that it is safe. What if
> we are trying to lock the spinlock before this particular slab is
> initialised with sighand_ctor?

But this is not possible? ->sighand can never point to the uninitialized
struct sighand_struct.

Just in case... please note that if ->sighand was freed and then
re-allocated while __lock_task_sighand() spins under rcu_read_lock(),
sighand_ctor() won't be called again (due to SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU).
Perhaps this was the source of your confusion?

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web