References: <20171129175605.GA863@jcartwri.amer.corp.natinst.com> <20171206234622.GZ3326@worktop> <87y3mf8f1j.fsf@ni.com> <20171207104516.ljmivyqx7yrthflu@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20171207142648.n4h3vzyajw2zlxv2@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <87mv2ur3ew.fsf@kerf.amer.corp.natinst.com> <20171207195052.GG18445@jcartwri.amer.corp.natinst.com>
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.19; emacs 25.3.1
From: Gratian Crisan <gratian.crisan@ni.com>
To: Julia Cartwright <julia@ni.com>
Cc: Gratian Crisan <gratian.crisan@ni.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: PI futexes + lock stealing woes
In-reply-to: <20171207195052.GG18445@jcartwri.amer.corp.natinst.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 17:02:40 -0600
Message-ID: <87lgieqgz3.fsf@kerf.amer.corp.natinst.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Dec 2017 23:03:27.4454 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 5e094344-1769-480c-95b3-08d53dc6ba3b
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 87ba1f9a-44cd-43a6-b008-6fdb45a5204e
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR0401MB3593
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2017-12-07_11:,,
 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=inbound_policy_notspam policy=inbound_policy score=30
 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0
 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0
 mlxlogscore=929 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=30 reason=mlx
 scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1712070336
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 740
Lines: 24


Julia Cartwright writes:

> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 08:57:59AM -0600, Gratian Crisan wrote:
>>
>> Peter Zijlstra writes:
>> > The below compiles and boots, but is otherwise untested. Could you give
>> > it a spin?
>>
>> Thank you! Yes, I'll start a test now.
>
> I gave it a spin with my minimal reproducing case w/ the strategic
> msleep().  Previously, I could reproduce it in less than a minute in
> that setup; now it's been running for a couple hours.  So ... looks
> good? :)

Yep ... looks good to me. I've been running two targets with the
original reproducer for 8 hours now plus a target running the C test.
All of them are still going.

I'm going to let them run overnight to make sure but I'm going to call
it fixed.

-Gratian