All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Sripathi Kodi <sripathik@in.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	John Stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Dinakar Guniguntala <dino@in.ibm.com>,
	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>, Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Sripathi Kodi <sripathik@in.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	John Stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Dinakar Guniguntala <dino@in.ibm.com>,
	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Subject: [tip PATCH v6 5/8] RFC: rt_mutex: add proxy lock routines
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:38:13 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090330213813.606.64734.stgit@Aeon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090330213306.606.9540.stgit@Aeon>

This patch is required for the first half of requeue_pi to function.  It
basically splits rt_mutex_slowlock() right down the middle, just before the
first call to schedule().

This patch uses a new futex_q field, rt_waiter, for now.  I think
I should be able to use task->pi_blocked_on in a future version of this patch.

V6: -add mark_rt_mutex_waiters() to rt_mutex_start_procy_lock() to avoid
     the race condition evident in previous versions
    -cleanup kernel-docs formatting and comments
    -try to take the lock in rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock() rather than assume
     the lock is held
    -remove initial schedule in finish_proxy_lock to allow for signal and
     timeout detection.
V5: -remove EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL from the new routines
    -minor cleanups
V4: -made detect_deadlock a parameter to rt_mutex_enqueue_task
    -refactored rt_mutex_slowlock to share code with new functions
    -renamed rt_mutex_enqueue_task and rt_mutex_handle_wakeup to
     rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock and rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock, respectively

Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Sripathi Kodi <sripathik@in.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: John Stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Dinakar Guniguntala <dino@in.ibm.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
---

 kernel/rtmutex.c        |  240 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
 kernel/rtmutex_common.h |    8 ++
 2 files changed, 195 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/rtmutex.c b/kernel/rtmutex.c
index 69d9cb9..fec77e7 100644
--- a/kernel/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/rtmutex.c
@@ -300,7 +300,8 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(struct task_struct *task,
  * assigned pending owner [which might not have taken the
  * lock yet]:
  */
-static inline int try_to_steal_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock)
+static inline int try_to_steal_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
+				    struct task_struct *task)
 {
 	struct task_struct *pendowner = rt_mutex_owner(lock);
 	struct rt_mutex_waiter *next;
@@ -309,11 +310,11 @@ static inline int try_to_steal_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock)
 	if (!rt_mutex_owner_pending(lock))
 		return 0;
 
-	if (pendowner == current)
+	if (pendowner == task)
 		return 1;
 
 	spin_lock_irqsave(&pendowner->pi_lock, flags);
-	if (current->prio >= pendowner->prio) {
+	if (task->prio >= pendowner->prio) {
 		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pendowner->pi_lock, flags);
 		return 0;
 	}
@@ -338,21 +339,21 @@ static inline int try_to_steal_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock)
 	 * We are going to steal the lock and a waiter was
 	 * enqueued on the pending owners pi_waiters queue. So
 	 * we have to enqueue this waiter into
-	 * current->pi_waiters list. This covers the case,
-	 * where current is boosted because it holds another
+	 * task->pi_waiters list. This covers the case,
+	 * where task is boosted because it holds another
 	 * lock and gets unboosted because the booster is
 	 * interrupted, so we would delay a waiter with higher
-	 * priority as current->normal_prio.
+	 * priority as task->normal_prio.
 	 *
 	 * Note: in the rare case of a SCHED_OTHER task changing
 	 * its priority and thus stealing the lock, next->task
-	 * might be current:
+	 * might be task:
 	 */
-	if (likely(next->task != current)) {
-		spin_lock_irqsave(&current->pi_lock, flags);
-		plist_add(&next->pi_list_entry, &current->pi_waiters);
-		__rt_mutex_adjust_prio(current);
-		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&current->pi_lock, flags);
+	if (likely(next->task != task)) {
+		spin_lock_irqsave(&task->pi_lock, flags);
+		plist_add(&next->pi_list_entry, &task->pi_waiters);
+		__rt_mutex_adjust_prio(task);
+		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
 	}
 	return 1;
 }
@@ -389,7 +390,7 @@ static int try_to_take_rt_mutex(struct rt_mutex *lock)
 	 */
 	mark_rt_mutex_waiters(lock);
 
-	if (rt_mutex_owner(lock) && !try_to_steal_lock(lock))
+	if (rt_mutex_owner(lock) && !try_to_steal_lock(lock, current))
 		return 0;
 
 	/* We got the lock. */
@@ -411,6 +412,7 @@ static int try_to_take_rt_mutex(struct rt_mutex *lock)
  */
 static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struct rt_mutex *lock,
 				   struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter,
+				   struct task_struct *task,
 				   int detect_deadlock)
 {
 	struct task_struct *owner = rt_mutex_owner(lock);
@@ -418,21 +420,21 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struct rt_mutex *lock,
 	unsigned long flags;
 	int chain_walk = 0, res;
 
-	spin_lock_irqsave(&current->pi_lock, flags);
-	__rt_mutex_adjust_prio(current);
-	waiter->task = current;
+	spin_lock_irqsave(&task->pi_lock, flags);
+	__rt_mutex_adjust_prio(task);
+	waiter->task = task;
 	waiter->lock = lock;
-	plist_node_init(&waiter->list_entry, current->prio);
-	plist_node_init(&waiter->pi_list_entry, current->prio);
+	plist_node_init(&waiter->list_entry, task->prio);
+	plist_node_init(&waiter->pi_list_entry, task->prio);
 
 	/* Get the top priority waiter on the lock */
 	if (rt_mutex_has_waiters(lock))
 		top_waiter = rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock);
 	plist_add(&waiter->list_entry, &lock->wait_list);
 
-	current->pi_blocked_on = waiter;
+	task->pi_blocked_on = waiter;
 
-	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&current->pi_lock, flags);
+	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
 
 	if (waiter == rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)) {
 		spin_lock_irqsave(&owner->pi_lock, flags);
@@ -460,7 +462,7 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struct rt_mutex *lock,
 	spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
 
 	res = rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(owner, detect_deadlock, lock, waiter,
-					 current);
+					 task);
 
 	spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
 
@@ -605,37 +607,25 @@ void rt_mutex_adjust_pi(struct task_struct *task)
 	rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(task, 0, NULL, NULL, task);
 }
 
-/*
- * Slow path lock function:
+/**
+ * __rt_mutex_slowlock() - Perform the wait-wake-try-to-take loop
+ * @lock:		 the rt_mutex to take
+ * @state:		 the state the task should block in (TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE
+ * 			 or TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)
+ * @timeout:		 the pre-initialized and started timer, or NULL for none
+ * @waiter:		 the pre-initialized rt_mutex_waiter
+ * @detect_deadlock:	 passed to task_blocks_on_rt_mutex
+ *
+ * lock->wait_lock must be held by the caller.
  */
 static int __sched
-rt_mutex_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *lock, int state,
-		  struct hrtimer_sleeper *timeout,
-		  int detect_deadlock)
+__rt_mutex_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *lock, int state,
+		    struct hrtimer_sleeper *timeout,
+		    struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter,
+		    int detect_deadlock)
 {
-	struct rt_mutex_waiter waiter;
 	int ret = 0;
 
-	debug_rt_mutex_init_waiter(&waiter);
-	waiter.task = NULL;
-
-	spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
-
-	/* Try to acquire the lock again: */
-	if (try_to_take_rt_mutex(lock)) {
-		spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
-		return 0;
-	}
-
-	set_current_state(state);
-
-	/* Setup the timer, when timeout != NULL */
-	if (unlikely(timeout)) {
-		hrtimer_start_expires(&timeout->timer, HRTIMER_MODE_ABS);
-		if (!hrtimer_active(&timeout->timer))
-			timeout->task = NULL;
-	}
-
 	for (;;) {
 		/* Try to acquire the lock: */
 		if (try_to_take_rt_mutex(lock))
@@ -656,19 +646,19 @@ rt_mutex_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *lock, int state,
 		}
 
 		/*
-		 * waiter.task is NULL the first time we come here and
+		 * waiter->task is NULL the first time we come here and
 		 * when we have been woken up by the previous owner
 		 * but the lock got stolen by a higher prio task.
 		 */
-		if (!waiter.task) {
-			ret = task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(lock, &waiter,
+		if (!waiter->task) {
+			ret = task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(lock, waiter, current,
 						      detect_deadlock);
 			/*
 			 * If we got woken up by the owner then start loop
 			 * all over without going into schedule to try
 			 * to get the lock now:
 			 */
-			if (unlikely(!waiter.task)) {
+			if (unlikely(!waiter->task)) {
 				/*
 				 * Reset the return value. We might
 				 * have returned with -EDEADLK and the
@@ -684,15 +674,52 @@ rt_mutex_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *lock, int state,
 
 		spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
 
-		debug_rt_mutex_print_deadlock(&waiter);
+		debug_rt_mutex_print_deadlock(waiter);
 
-		if (waiter.task)
+		if (waiter->task)
 			schedule_rt_mutex(lock);
 
 		spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
 		set_current_state(state);
 	}
 
+	return ret;
+}
+
+/*
+ * Slow path lock function:
+ */
+static int __sched
+rt_mutex_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *lock, int state,
+		  struct hrtimer_sleeper *timeout,
+		  int detect_deadlock)
+{
+	struct rt_mutex_waiter waiter;
+	int ret = 0;
+
+	debug_rt_mutex_init_waiter(&waiter);
+	waiter.task = NULL;
+
+	spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
+
+	/* Try to acquire the lock again: */
+	if (try_to_take_rt_mutex(lock)) {
+		spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+		return 0;
+	}
+
+	set_current_state(state);
+
+	/* Setup the timer, when timeout != NULL */
+	if (unlikely(timeout)) {
+		hrtimer_start_expires(&timeout->timer, HRTIMER_MODE_ABS);
+		if (!hrtimer_active(&timeout->timer))
+			timeout->task = NULL;
+	}
+
+	ret = __rt_mutex_slowlock(lock, state, timeout, &waiter,
+				  detect_deadlock);
+
 	set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
 
 	if (unlikely(waiter.task))
@@ -986,6 +1013,59 @@ void rt_mutex_proxy_unlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
 }
 
 /**
+ * rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock() - Start lock acquisition for another task
+ * @lock:		the rt_mutex to take
+ * @waiter:		the pre-initialized rt_mutex_waiter
+ * @task:		the task to prepare
+ * @detect_deadlock:	perform deadlock detection (1) or not (0)
+ *
+ * Returns:
+ *  0 - task blocked on lock
+ *  1 - acquired the lock for task, caller should wake it up
+ * <0 - error
+ *
+ * Special API call for FUTEX_REQUEUE_PI support.
+ */
+int rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
+			      struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter,
+			      struct task_struct *task, int detect_deadlock)
+{
+	int ret;
+
+	spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
+
+	mark_rt_mutex_waiters(lock);
+
+	if (!rt_mutex_owner(lock) || try_to_steal_lock(lock, task)) {
+		/* We got the lock for task. */
+		debug_rt_mutex_lock(lock);
+
+		rt_mutex_set_owner(lock, task, 0);
+
+		rt_mutex_deadlock_account_lock(lock, task);
+		return 1;
+	}
+
+	ret = task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(lock, waiter, task, detect_deadlock);
+
+
+	if (ret && !waiter->task) {
+		/*
+		 * Reset the return value. We might have
+		 * returned with -EDEADLK and the owner
+		 * released the lock while we were walking the
+		 * pi chain.  Let the waiter sort it out.
+		 */
+		ret = 0;
+	}
+	spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+
+	debug_rt_mutex_print_deadlock(waiter);
+
+	return ret;
+}
+
+/**
  * rt_mutex_next_owner - return the next owner of the lock
  *
  * @lock: the rt lock query
@@ -1004,3 +1084,57 @@ struct task_struct *rt_mutex_next_owner(struct rt_mutex *lock)
 
 	return rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)->task;
 }
+
+/**
+ * rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock() - Complete lock acquisition
+ * @lock:		the rt_mutex we were woken on
+ * @to:			the timeout, null if none. hrtimer should already have
+ * 			been started.
+ * @waiter:		the pre-initialized rt_mutex_waiter
+ * @detect_deadlock:	perform deadlock detection (1) or not (0)
+ *
+ * Complete the lock acquisition started our behalf by another thread.
+ *
+ * Returns:
+ *  0 - success
+ * <0 - error, one of -EINTR, -ETIMEDOUT, or -EDEADLK
+ *
+ * Special API call for PI-futex requeue support
+ */
+int rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
+			       struct hrtimer_sleeper *to,
+			       struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter,
+			       int detect_deadlock)
+{
+	int ret;
+
+	spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
+
+	set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
+
+	ret = __rt_mutex_slowlock(lock, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, to, waiter,
+				  detect_deadlock);
+
+	set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
+
+	if (unlikely(waiter->task))
+		remove_waiter(lock, waiter);
+
+	/*
+	 * try_to_take_rt_mutex() sets the waiter bit unconditionally. We might
+	 * have to fix that up.
+	 */
+	fixup_rt_mutex_waiters(lock);
+
+	spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+
+	/*
+	 * Readjust priority, when we did not get the lock. We might have been
+	 * the pending owner and boosted. Since we did not take the lock, the
+	 * PI boost has to go.
+	 */
+	if (unlikely(ret))
+		rt_mutex_adjust_prio(current);
+
+	return ret;
+}
diff --git a/kernel/rtmutex_common.h b/kernel/rtmutex_common.h
index e124bf5..97a2f81 100644
--- a/kernel/rtmutex_common.h
+++ b/kernel/rtmutex_common.h
@@ -120,6 +120,14 @@ extern void rt_mutex_init_proxy_locked(struct rt_mutex *lock,
 				       struct task_struct *proxy_owner);
 extern void rt_mutex_proxy_unlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
 				  struct task_struct *proxy_owner);
+extern int rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
+				     struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter,
+				     struct task_struct *task,
+				     int detect_deadlock);
+extern int rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
+				      struct hrtimer_sleeper *to,
+				      struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter,
+				      int detect_deadlock);
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES
 # include "rtmutex-debug.h"


  parent reply	other threads:[~2009-03-30 21:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-03-30 21:37 [tip PATCH v6 0/8] requeue pi implementation Darren Hart
2009-03-30 21:37 ` [tip PATCH v6 1/8] RFC: futex: futex_wait_queue_me() Darren Hart
2009-03-31  6:44   ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-03-31 14:58     ` Darren Hart
2009-03-30 21:37 ` [tip PATCH v6 2/8] RFC: futex: futex_top_waiter() Darren Hart
2009-03-30 21:37 ` [tip PATCH v6 3/8] RFC: futex: futex_lock_pi_atomic() Darren Hart
2009-03-31  6:49   ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-03-31 15:00     ` Darren Hart
2009-03-30 21:38 ` [tip PATCH v6 4/8] RFC: futex: finish_futex_lock_pi() Darren Hart
2009-03-30 21:38 ` Darren Hart [this message]
2009-03-30 21:38 ` [tip PATCH v6 6/8] RFC: futex: Add FUTEX_HAS_TIMEOUT flag to restart.futex.flags Darren Hart
2009-03-30 21:40   ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-30 22:40     ` Darren Hart
2009-03-30 21:38 ` [tip PATCH v6 7/8] RFC: futex: Add requeue_futex() call Darren Hart
2009-03-30 21:38 ` [tip PATCH v6 8/8] RFC: futex: add requeue_pi calls Darren Hart
2009-03-30 21:47   ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-30 22:44     ` Darren Hart
2009-03-30 23:31       ` Darren Hart
2009-03-31  7:30   ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-03-31 18:16     ` Darren Hart
2009-03-30 21:55 ` glibc hacks for requeue_pi Darren Hart
2009-03-31  2:09 ` [tip PATCH v6 0/8] requeue pi implementation Steven Rostedt
2009-03-31  4:48   ` Darren Hart

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20090330213813.606.64734.stgit@Aeon \
    --to=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
    --cc=dino@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=drepper@redhat.com \
    --cc=jakub@redhat.com \
    --cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=sripathik@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.