From: Greg KH on
2.6.33-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.


From: Tony Breeds <tony(a)>

commit fd6be105b883244127a734ac9f14ae94a022dcc0 upstream.

Currently, we can hit a nasty case with optimistic
spinning on mutexes:

CPU A tries to take a mutex, while holding the BKL

CPU B tried to take the BLK while holding the mutex

This looks like a AB-BA scenario but in practice, is
allowed and happens due to the auto-release on
schedule() nature of the BKL.

In that case, the optimistic spinning code can get us
into a situation where instead of going to sleep, A
will spin waiting for B who is spinning waiting for
A, and the only way out of that loop is the
need_resched() test in mutex_spin_on_owner().

This patch fixes it by completely disabling spinning
if we own the BKL. This adds one more detail to the
extensive list of reasons why it's a bad idea for
kernel code to be holding the BKL.

Signed-off-by: Tony Breeds <tony(a)>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds(a)>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra(a)>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh(a)>
LKML-Reference: <20100519054636.GC12389(a)>
[ added an unlikely() attribute to the branch ]
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo(a)>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh(a)>

kernel/mutex.c | 7 +++++++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

--- a/kernel/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/mutex.c
@@ -172,6 +172,13 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock,
struct thread_info *owner;

+ * If we own the BKL, then don't spin. The owner of
+ * the mutex might be waiting on us to release the BKL.
+ */
+ if (unlikely(current->lock_depth >= 0))
+ break;
+ /*
* If there's an owner, wait for it to either
* release the lock or go to sleep.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at