On Wed, 14 May 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:53:44AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > What error would we return?
> > >
> > > This particular case is a serious error for which we have no good error
> > > code
> > > to return to userspace. It's an implementation defect, a bug, we should
> > > probably
> > > assert instead of pausing.
> >
> > Errm.
> >
> > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xsh/pthread_mutex_lock.html
> >
> > The pthread_mutex_lock() function may fail if:
> >
> > [EDEADLK]
> > The current thread already owns the mutex.
> >
> > That's a exactly the error code, which the kernel returns when it
> > detects a deadlock.
> >
> > And glibc returns EDEADLK at a lot of places already. So in that case
> > it's not a serious error? Because it's detected by glibc. You can't be
> > serious about that.
> >
> > So why is a kernel detected deadlock different? Because it detects not
> > only AA, it detects ABBA and more. But it's still a dead lock. And
> > while posix spec only talks about AA, it's the very same issue.
> >
> > So why not propagate this to the caller so he gets an alert right away
> > instead of letting him attach a debugger, and scratch his head and
> > lookup glibc source to find out why the hell glibc called pause.
>
>
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/pthread_mutex_lock.html
Yuck. I should not have used the first link Gurgle brought up.
> The pthread_mutex_lock() function may fail if:
>
> [EDEADLK]
> A deadlock condition was detected or the current thread already owns
> the mutex.
>
> Which is explicitly wider than the AA recursion and fully supports the
> full lock graph traversal we do.
Definitely. It's what the kernel does :)
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
