Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 24 Nov 2012 16:16:01 +0000
From:      Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>
To:        Ryan Stone <rysto32@gmail.com>
Cc:        FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Spurious witness warning when destroying spin mtx
Message-ID:  <CAJ-FndACSnqQAOU7-EtFr-wvY8MZazvXtup7sufhAyxCOg5RDQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ-FndCh4T-ezOnGEw8LEpE32LAfo4HM-FvbfOW8weEuOQV=7A@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <CAFMmRNyYccyXFh0r2jC2Q5ynYQH09SiZNguLp8X4JWSX4Lua5w@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-FndDL18oQdFZQh4AKr9NbOc2WxWJoDVjOtkjt%2Bb7w36E_kA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFMmRNwn-d5P=hRxx9gyhNYJ%2B7ycVqzv-4FzXXvZGg0bC81REg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-FndCh4T-ezOnGEw8LEpE32LAfo4HM-FvbfOW8weEuOQV=7A@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Ryan Stone <rysto32@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> It was taskqueue_free:
>
> taskqueue_free() must not be called in places where there are still
> races, so the lock is not really meaningful and should be acquired.

Herm, I mean to say "after taskqueue_termintate() returns must not be races...".

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-FndACSnqQAOU7-EtFr-wvY8MZazvXtup7sufhAyxCOg5RDQ>