From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 27 21:59:06 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C88B106566B; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:59:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marius@alchemy.franken.de) Received: from alchemy.franken.de (alchemy.franken.de [194.94.249.214]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC7648FC1B; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:59:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from alchemy.franken.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alchemy.franken.de (8.14.3/8.14.3/ALCHEMY.FRANKEN.DE) with ESMTP id o0RLx4AA056247; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:59:04 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from marius@alchemy.franken.de) Received: (from marius@localhost) by alchemy.franken.de (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id o0RLx4O6056246; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:59:04 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from marius) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:59:04 +0100 From: Marius Strobl To: Attilio Rao Message-ID: <20100127215904.GF40779@alchemy.franken.de> References: <201001231554.o0NFsMbx049837@svn.freebsd.org> <3bbf2fe11001252310r408a6be4j9bc42618394b3e3d@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=unknown-8bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <3bbf2fe11001252310r408a6be4j9bc42618394b3e3d@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Rob Farmer , src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r202889 - head/sys/kern X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:59:06 -0000 On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 08:10:25AM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote: > 2010/1/26 Rob Farmer : > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Attilio Rao wrote: > >> Author: attilio > >> Date: Sat Jan 23 15:54:21 2010 > >> New Revision: 202889 > >> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/202889 > >> > >> Log: > >>  - Fix a race in sched_switch() of sched_4bsd. > >>    In the case of the thread being on a sleepqueue or a turnstile, the > >>    sched_lock was acquired (without the aid of the td_lock interface) and > >>    the td_lock was dropped. This was going to break locking rules on other > >>    threads willing to access to the thread (via the td_lock interface) and > >>    modify his flags (allowed as long as the container lock was different > >>    by the one used in sched_switch). > >>    In order to prevent this situation, while sched_lock is acquired there > >>    the td_lock gets blocked. [0] > >>  - Merge the ULE's internal function thread_block_switch() into the global > >>    thread_lock_block() and make the former semantic as the default for > >>    thread_lock_block(). This means that thread_lock_block() will not > >>    disable interrupts when called (and consequently thread_unlock_block() > >>    will not re-enabled them when called). This should be done manually > >>    when necessary. > >>    Note, however, that ULE's thread_unblock_switch() is not reaped > >>    because it does reflect a difference in semantic due in ULE (the > >>    td_lock may not be necessarilly still blocked_lock when calling this). > >>    While asymmetric, it does describe a remarkable difference in semantic > >>    that is good to keep in mind. > >> > >>  [0] Reported by:      Kohji Okuno > >>                         > >>  Tested by:            Giovanni Trematerra > >>                         > >>  MFC:                  2 weeks > >> > >> Modified: > >>  head/sys/kern/kern_mutex.c > >>  head/sys/kern/sched_4bsd.c > >>  head/sys/kern/sched_ule.c > > > > Hi, > > > > This commit seems to be causing me a kernel panic on sparc64 - details > > are in PR 143215. Could you take a look before MFCing this? > > I think that the bug may be in cpu_switch() where the mutex parameter > for sched_4bsd is not handled correctly. > Does sparc64 support ULE? I don't think it does and I think that it > simply ignores the third argument of cpu_switch() which is vital now > for for sched_4bsd too (what needs to happen is to take the passed > mutex and to set the TD_LOCK of old thread to be the third argument). > Unluckilly, I can't do that in sparc64 asm right now, but it should > not be too difficult to cope with it. > The following patch adds handling of the mutex parameter to the sparc64 cpu_switch(): http://people.freebsd.org/~marius/sparc64_cpu_switch_mtx.diff This patch works fine with r202888. With r202889 it allows the machine to boot again, however putting some load on the machine causes it to issue a reset without a chance to debug. I've also tried with some variations like duplicating the old cpu_switch() for cpu_throw() so the altered cpu_switch() doesn't need to distinguish between the to cases and only assigning old->td_lock right before return but nothing made a difference. Given that this leaves little room for a bug in the cpu_switch() changes I suspect r202889 also breaks additional assumptions. For example the sparc64 pmap code used sched_lock, does that need to change to be td_lock now maybe? Is there anything else that comes to your mind in this regard? Marius