Re: softlockups in multi_cpu_stop

[Davidlohr Bueso]

On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 13:12 -0800, Jason Low wrote:
> In owner_running() there are 2 conditions that would make it return
> false: if the owner changed or if the owner is not running. However,
> that patch continues spinning if there is a "new owner" but it does not
> take into account that we may want to stop spinning if the owner is not
> running (due to getting rescheduled).

So you're rationale is that we're missing this need_resched:

	while (owner_running(sem, owner)) {
		/* abort spinning when need_resched */
		if (need_resched()) {
			rcu_read_unlock();
			return false;
		}
	}

Because the owner_running() would return false, right? Yeah that makes
sense, as missing a resched is a bug, as opposed to our heuristics being
so painfully off.

Sasha, Ming (Cc'ed), does this address the issues you guys are seeing?

Thanks,
Davidlohr

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