From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 4 07:37:09 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8B5B1065670 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 07:37:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1A758FC44 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 06:20:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q946K9cW094307 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 06:20:09 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q946K98l094306; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 06:20:09 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 06:20:09 GMT Message-Id: <201210040620.q946K98l094306@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Eugene Grosbein Cc: Subject: Re: kern/172166: Deadlock in the networking code, possible due to a bug in the SCHED_ULE X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eugene Grosbein List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 07:37:09 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/172166; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Eugene Grosbein To: Andriy Gapon Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, Alexander Motin Subject: Re: kern/172166: Deadlock in the networking code, possible due to a bug in the SCHED_ULE Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 13:12:22 +0700 03.10.2012 21:56, Andriy Gapon пишет: > on 02/10/2012 09:58 Alexander Motin said the following: >> About rw_lock priority propagation locking(9) tells: >> The rw_lock locks have priority propagation like mutexes, but priority can be >> propagated only to an exclusive holder. This limitation comes from the fact that >> shared owners are anonymous. > > Yeah... and as we see it has a potential to result in priority inversion. > >> What's about idle stealing threshold, it was fixed in HEAD at r239194, but wasn't >> merged yet. It should be trivial to merge it. > > And I've also misread the code, confused 6 CPUs case with 8 CPUs case. > > Can I have any advice/workaround/bugfix on how to reconfigure my routers to prevent them from locking this way?