Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1594492
| From | Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH -v5 10/14] futex: Pull rt_mutex_futex_unlock() out from under hb->lock |
| Date | 2017-03-07 19:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tirSi-2Tr-31@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <theNr-7vq-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <theNr-7vq-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Sat, 4 Mar 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> @@ -1035,6 +1037,9 @@ static int attach_to_pi_state(u32 __user
> * has dropped the hb->lock in between queue_me() and unqueue_me_pi(),
> * which in turn means that futex_lock_pi() still has a reference on
> * our pi_state.
> + *
> + * IOW, we cannot race against the unlocked put_pi_state() in
> + * futex_unlock_pi().
That 'IOW' made my head spin for a while. I rather prefer to spell it out
more explicitely:
* The waiter holding a reference on @pi_state protects also
* against the unlocked put_pi_state() in futex_unlock_pi(),
* futex_lock_pi() and futex_wait_requeue_pi() as it cannot go to 0
* and consequentely free pi state before we can take a reference
* ourself.
> */
> WARN_ON(!atomic_read(&pi_state->refcount));
>
> @@ -1378,47 +1383,33 @@ static void mark_wake_futex(struct wake_
> smp_store_release(&q->lock_ptr, NULL);
> }
>
> -static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uaddr, u32 uval, struct futex_q *top_waiter,
> - struct futex_hash_bucket *hb)
Please add a comment, that the caller must hold a reference on @pi_state
> +static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uaddr, u32 uval, struct futex_pi_state *pi_state)
> {
> - struct task_struct *new_owner;
> - struct futex_pi_state *pi_state = top_waiter->pi_state;
> u32 uninitialized_var(curval), newval;
> + struct task_struct *new_owner;
> + bool deboost = false;
> DEFINE_WAKE_Q(wake_q);
> - bool deboost;
> int ret = 0;
>
> - if (!pi_state)
> - return -EINVAL;
> -
> - /*
> - * If current does not own the pi_state then the futex is
> - * inconsistent and user space fiddled with the futex value.
> - */
> - if (pi_state->owner != current)
> - return -EINVAL;
> -
> raw_spin_lock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
> new_owner = rt_mutex_next_owner(&pi_state->pi_mutex);
> -
> - /*
> - * When we interleave with futex_lock_pi() where it does
> - * rt_mutex_timed_futex_lock(), we might observe @this futex_q waiter,
> - * but the rt_mutex's wait_list can be empty (either still, or again,
> - * depending on which side we land).
> - *
> - * When this happens, give up our locks and try again, giving the
> - * futex_lock_pi() instance time to complete and unqueue_me().
> - */
> if (!new_owner) {
> - raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
> - return -EAGAIN;
> + /*
> + * Since we held neither hb->lock nor wait_lock when coming
> + * into this function, we could have raced with futex_lock_pi()
> + * such that it will have removed the waiter that brought us
> + * here.
Hmm. That's not entirely correct. There are two cases:
lock_pi()
queue_me() <- Makes it visible as waiter in the hash bucket
unlock(hb->lock)
[1]
rtmutex_futex_lock()
[2]
lock(hb->lock)
Both [1] and [2] are valid reasons why the top waiter is not a rtmutex
waiter.
Thanks,
tglx
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH -v5 00/14] the saga of FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI wobbles continues Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-03-04 11:10 +0100
[PATCH -v5 02/14] futex: Add missing error handling to FUTEX_REQUEUE_PI Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-03-04 11:10 +0100
[PATCH -v5 04/14] futex: Use smp_store_release() in mark_wake_futex() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-03-04 11:10 +0100
[PATCH -v5 10/14] futex: Pull rt_mutex_futex_unlock() out from under hb->lock Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-03-04 11:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH -v5 10/14] futex: Pull rt_mutex_futex_unlock() out from under hb->lock Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2017-03-07 19:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH -v5 10/14] futex: Pull rt_mutex_futex_unlock() out from under hb->lock Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-03-07 19:50 +0100
[PATCH -v5 14/14] futex: futex_unlock_pi() determinism Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-03-04 11:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH -v5 14/14] futex: futex_unlock_pi() determinism Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2017-03-07 15:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH -v5 14/14] futex: futex_unlock_pi() determinism Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-03-07 19:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH -v5 14/14] futex: futex_unlock_pi() determinism Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-03-13 10:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH -v5 14/14] futex: futex_unlock_pi() determinism Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2017-03-13 15:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH -v5 14/14] futex: futex_unlock_pi() determinism Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-03-13 16:20 +0100
[PATCH -v5 11/14] futex,rt_mutex: Introduce rt_mutex_init_waiter() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-03-04 11:10 +0100
[PATCH -v5 07/14] futex: Change locking rules Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-03-04 11:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH -v5 07/14] futex: Change locking rules Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2017-03-07 14:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH -v5 07/14] futex: Change locking rules Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> - 2017-03-07 18:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH -v5 07/14] futex: Change locking rules Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-03-07 19:10 +0100
[PATCH -v5 06/14] futex,rt_mutex: Provide futex specific rt_mutex API Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-03-04 11:50 +0100
[PATCH -v5 05/14] futex: Remove rt_mutex_deadlock_account_*() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-03-04 11:50 +0100
[PATCH -v5 08/14] futex: Cleanup refcounting Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-03-04 12:50 +0100
[PATCH -v5 03/14] futex: Cleanup variable names for futex_top_waiter() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-03-04 12:50 +0100
[PATCH -v5 12/14] futex,rt_mutex: Restructure rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-03-04 12:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH -v5 12/14] futex,rt_mutex: Restructure rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock() Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2017-03-07 15:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH -v5 12/14] futex,rt_mutex: Restructure rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock() Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2017-03-07 19:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH -v5 12/14] futex,rt_mutex: Restructure rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-03-07 19:50 +0100
[PATCH] futex: move debug_rt_mutex_free_waiter() further down Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> - 2017-03-08 16:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH] futex: move debug_rt_mutex_free_waiter() further down Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> - 2017-03-08 16:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH] futex: move debug_rt_mutex_free_waiter() further down Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2017-03-08 17:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH] futex: move debug_rt_mutex_free_waiter() further down Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2017-03-08 17:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH] futex: move debug_rt_mutex_free_waiter() further down Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-03-13 10:20 +0100
csiph-web