Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1501865

Re: [PATCH -v4 6/8] locking/mutex: Restructure wait loop

Path csiph.com!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH -v4 6/8] locking/mutex: Restructure wait loop
Date Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:50:01 +0200
Message-ID <stdEt-2li-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <spEWB-2dt-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <spFfX-2lv-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <srPXB-5cV-37@gated-at.bofh.it>
MIME-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition inline
User-Agent Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender robomod@news.nic.it
List-ID <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved robomod@news.nic.it
Lines 63
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>, Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com>, Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>, Terry Rudd <terry.rudd@hpe.com>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>, Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
X-Original-Date Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:44:49 +0200
X-Original-Message-ID <20161017104449.GO3117@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
X-Original-References <20161007145243.361481786@infradead.org> <20161007150211.271490994@infradead.org> <20161013151720.GB13138@arm.com>
X-Original-Sender linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Xref csiph.com linux.kernel:1501865

Show key headers only | View raw


On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 04:17:21PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> I'm struggling to get my head around the handoff code after this change...
> 
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 04:52:49PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> > +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> > @@ -631,13 +631,21 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock,
> >  
> >  	lock_contended(&lock->dep_map, ip);
> >  
> > +	set_task_state(task, state);
> >  	for (;;) {
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Once we hold wait_lock, we're serialized against
> > +		 * mutex_unlock() handing the lock off to us, do a trylock
> > +		 * before testing the error conditions to make sure we pick up
> > +		 * the handoff.
> > +		 */
> >  		if (__mutex_trylock(lock, first))
> > -			break;
> > +			goto acquired;
> >  
> >  		/*
> > -		 * got a signal? (This code gets eliminated in the
> > -		 * TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE case.)
> > +		 * Check for signals and wound conditions while holding
> > +		 * wait_lock. This ensures the lock cancellation is ordered
> > +		 * against mutex_unlock() and wake-ups do not go missing.
> >  		 */
> >  		if (unlikely(signal_pending_state(state, task))) {
> >  			ret = -EINTR;
> > @@ -650,16 +658,27 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock,
> >  				goto err;
> >  		}
> >  
> > -		__set_task_state(task, state);
> >  		spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
> >  		schedule_preempt_disabled();
> > -		spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
> >  
> >  		if (!first && __mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, &waiter)) {
> >  			first = true;
> >  			__mutex_set_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF);
> >  		}
> > +
> > +		set_task_state(task, state);
> 
> With this change, we no longer hold the lock wit_hen we set the task
> state, and it's ordered strictly *after* setting the HANDOFF flag.
> Doesn't that mean that the unlock code can see the HANDOFF flag, issue
> the wakeup, but then we come in and overwrite the task state?
> 
> I'm struggling to work out whether that's an issue, but it certainly
> feels odd and is a change from the previous behaviour.

Right, so I think the code is fine, since in that case the
__mutex_trylock() must see the handoff and we'll break the loop and
(re)set the state to RUNNING.

But you're right in that its slightly odd. I'll reorder them and put the
set_task_state() above the !first thing.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Re: [PATCH -v4 6/8] locking/mutex: Restructure wait loop Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2016-10-13 17:20 +0200
  Re: [PATCH -v4 6/8] locking/mutex: Restructure wait loop Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-10-17 12:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH -v4 6/8] locking/mutex: Restructure wait loop Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-10-17 15:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH -v4 6/8] locking/mutex: Restructure wait loop Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 15:50 +0200
        Re: [PATCH -v4 6/8] locking/mutex: Restructure wait loop Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-10-17 18:00 +0200
  Re: [PATCH -v4 6/8] locking/mutex: Restructure wait loop Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-10-19 19:40 +0200
    ciao set_task_state() (was Re: [PATCH -v4 6/8] locking/mutex:  Restructure wait loop) Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-10-24 04:00 +0200
      Re: ciao set_task_state() (was Re: [PATCH -v4 6/8] locking/mutex:  Restructure wait loop) Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 15:30 +0200
      Re: ciao set_task_state() (was Re: [PATCH -v4 6/8] locking/mutex:  Restructure wait loop) Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 16:30 +0200
        Re: ciao set_task_state() (was Re: [PATCH -v4 6/8] locking/mutex:  Restructure wait loop) Eric Wheeler <bcache@lists.ewheeler.net> - 2016-10-25 19:00 +0200
          Re: ciao set_task_state() (was Re: [PATCH -v4 6/8] locking/mutex:  Restructure wait loop) Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 19:50 +0200

csiph-web