Re: [BUG][tip/master] kernel panic while locking selftest at qspinlock_paravirt.h:137!

[Waiman Long]

On 07/11/2015 01:05 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On 2015/07/11 10:27, Waiman Long wrote:
> > On 07/10/2015 08:32 PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > > On 2015/07/10 23:28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 03:57:46PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > > * Peter Zijlstra<peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>   wrote:
> > > > > > Do we want to make double unlock non-fatal unconditionally?
> > > > > No, just don't BUG() out, don't crash the system - generate a warning?
> > > > So that would be a yes..
> > > >
> > > > Something like so then? Won't this generate a splat on that locking self
> > > > test then? And upset people?
> > > Hmm, yes, this still noisy...
> > > Can't we avoid double-unlock completely? it seems that this warning can
> > > happen randomly, which means pv-spinlock randomly broken, doesn't it?
> > It shouldn't randomly happen. The message should be printed at the first
> > instance of double-unlock. If that is not case, there may be some
> > problem in the code.
> Ah, OK. That comes from locking selftest. In that case, do we really
> need the warning while selftest, since we know it always fails ?
>
> > Anyway, I have an alternative fix that should better capture the problem:
> Do we need both Peter's BUG() removing patch and this?

No, you can choose either one. They are just different ways to solve the 
same BUG() problem.

Cheers,
Longman
--
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/