Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 1 Feb 2019 22:59:08 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
cc:     Sebastian Sewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        Stefan Liebler <stli@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: WARN_ON_ONCE(!new_owner) within wake_futex_pi() triggerede
In-Reply-To: <20190201161227.GG3770@osiris>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1902012258290.8200@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901301428390.5537@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901301517220.1950@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901301853290.1622@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20190130210733.mg6aascw2gzl3oqz@linutronix.de>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901302314590.8200@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20190130233557.GA4240@linux.ibm.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901310049440.8200@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901310117110.8200@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20190131165228.GA32680@osiris>
 <20190131170653.spnrxsiblkssleyd@linutronix.de> <20190201161227.GG3770@osiris>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 1 Feb 2019, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 06:06:53PM +0100, Sebastian Sewior wrote:
> > On 2019-01-31 17:52:28 [+0100], Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > > ...nevertheless Stefan and I looked through the lovely disassembly of
> > > _pthread_mutex_lock_full() to verify if the compiler barriers are
> > > actually doing what they are supposed to do. The generated code
> > > however does look correct.
> > > So, it must be something different.
> > 
> > would it make sense to use one locking function instead all three (lock,
> > try-lock, timed) in the test case to figure out if this is related to
> > one of the locking function?
> 
> I tried all three variants, but it seems to be close to impossible to
> re-create then. I had a single fail when using only the trylock
> variant, but I wouldn't say that means anything.
> 
> Only if all three variants run in parallel it seems to be quite
> reliably reproducible, even though sometimes it still takes an hour.

Were you able to capture a trace with the last set of additional trace
printks?

Thanks,

	tglx