Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] ipc: do not hold ipc lock more than necessary

[Davidlohr Bueso]

On Sat, 2013-03-02 at 15:35 +0700, Emmanuel Benisty wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Michel Lespinasse <walken@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Emmanuel Benisty <benisty.e@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> The following set of not-thoroughly-tested patches are based on the
> >>> discussion of holding the ipc lock unnecessarily, such as for permissions
> >>> and security checks:
> >>>
> >>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/28/540
> >>>
> >>> Patch 0/1: Introduces new functions, analogous to ipc_lock and ipc_lock_check
> >>> in the ipc utility code, allowing to obtain the ipc object without holding the lock.
> >>>
> >>> Patch 0/2: Use the new functions and only acquire the ipc lock when needed.
> >>
> >> Not sure how much a work in progress this is but my machine dies
> >> immediately when I start chromium, crappy mobile phone picture here:
> >> http://i.imgur.com/S0hfPz3.jpg
> >
> > We are missing the top of the trace there, so it's hard to be sure -
> > however, this could well be caused by the if (!out) check (instead of
> > if (IS_ERR(out)) that I noticed in patch 1/2.
> 
> Merci Michel but unfortunately, I'm still getting the same issue.

Will try to reproduce (and further testing on other machines) and debug
later today.

Thanks for testing,
Davidlohr

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/