Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 24 Nov 2012 15:01:39 +0000
From:      Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>
To:        Ryan Stone <rysto32@gmail.com>, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
Cc:        FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Spurious witness warning when destroying spin mtx
Message-ID:  <CAJ-FndDL18oQdFZQh4AKr9NbOc2WxWJoDVjOtkjt%2Bb7w36E_kA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFMmRNyYccyXFh0r2jC2Q5ynYQH09SiZNguLp8X4JWSX4Lua5w@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <CAFMmRNyYccyXFh0r2jC2Q5ynYQH09SiZNguLp8X4JWSX4Lua5w@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Ryan Stone <rysto32@gmail.com> wrote:
> Today I saw a spurious witness warning for "acquiring duplicate lock of
> same type".  The root cause is that when running mtx_destroy on a spinlock
> that is held by the current thread, mtx_destroy calls spinlock_exit()
> before calling WITNESS_UNLOCK, which opens up a window in which the CPU can
> be interrupted and attempt to acquire another spinlock of the same type as
> the one being destroyed.  This patch should fix it:

I seriously wonder why right now we don't assume the lock is unheld.
There are likely historically reasons for that, but I would like to
know which one are those and eventually fix them out.
FWIK, all the other locking primitives assume the lock is already
unheld when destroying and I think it would be good to have that for
mutexes as well.

Can you please show which lock triggers the panic you saw?

Thanks,
Attilio



-- 
Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-FndDL18oQdFZQh4AKr9NbOc2WxWJoDVjOtkjt%2Bb7w36E_kA>