On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 12:47:32PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> Hi,
> I wonder if simplelock->lock_holder should be declared volatile in sys/lock.h
> (and maybe others LOCKDEBUG fieds too) ?
> 
> I got a panic on a MP (1.6) machine:
> simple_lock: uninitialised lock
> in vfs_subr.c:1130
> I get this once in a while, I got another one a month or so ago, was in
> uvm_amap: 682 (see http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2002/12/16/0005.html)
> 
> I can't really see how this could happen, execpt if something else
> is corrupting the struct simplelock data. but in this case other values
> would probably be corrupted too, which is not the case.
> 
> Now, looking at kern_lock.c:_simple_lock(), I can see that alp->lock_holder
> is tested twice, one before we have the lock and one after we aquired the
> lock. If the lock was already locked and we're spining waiting to aquire
> it, the first time alp->lock_holder is used it will be different from
> LK_NOCPU, and at the second test, if the compiled cached the value in a
> register it'll read the old value.

Well, in this case the value can't be cached in a register, as the first
read is in a test.
Anyway there may be cases where this can matter, but not here.

--
Manuel Bouyer, LIP6, Universite Paris VI.           Manuel.Bouyer@lip6.fr
     NetBSD: 23 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--