public inbox for intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
	"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mutex: Report recursive ww_mutex locking early
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 09:43:53 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4271f89a-ab98-2d97-fccb-3527931597ec@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1464293297-19777-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>

Op 26-05-16 om 22:08 schreef Chris Wilson:
> Recursive locking for ww_mutexes was originally conceived as an
> exception. However, it is heavily used by the DRM atomic modesetting
> code. Currently, the recursive deadlock is checked after we have queued
> up for a busy-spin and as we never release the lock, we spin until
> kicked, whereupon the deadlock is discovered and reported.
>
> A simple solution for the now common problem is to move the recursive
> deadlock discovery to the first action when taking the ww_mutex.
>
> Testcase: igt/kms_cursor_legacy
> Suggested-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> ---
>
> Maarten suggested this as a simpler fix to the immediate problem. Imo,
> we still want to perform deadlock detection within the spin in order to
> catch more complicated deadlocks without osq_lock() forcing fairness!
Reviewed-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>

Should this be Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org ?

I think in the normal case things would move forward even with osq_lock,
but you can make a separate patch to add it to mutex_can_spin_on_owner,
with the same comment as in mutex_optimistic_spin.
> ---
>  kernel/locking/mutex.c | 9 ++++++---
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> index d60f1ba3e64f..1659398dc8f8 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> @@ -502,9 +502,6 @@ __ww_mutex_lock_check_stamp(struct mutex *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
>  	if (!hold_ctx)
>  		return 0;
>  
> -	if (unlikely(ctx == hold_ctx))
> -		return -EALREADY;
> -
>  	if (ctx->stamp - hold_ctx->stamp <= LONG_MAX &&
>  	    (ctx->stamp != hold_ctx->stamp || ctx > hold_ctx)) {
>  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES
> @@ -530,6 +527,12 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  	int ret;
>  
> +	if (use_ww_ctx) {
> +		struct ww_mutex *ww = container_of(lock, struct ww_mutex, base);
> +		if (unlikely(ww_ctx == READ_ONCE(ww->ctx)))
> +			return -EALREADY;
> +	}
> +
>  	preempt_disable();
>  	mutex_acquire_nest(&lock->dep_map, subclass, 0, nest_lock, ip);
>  

  reply	other threads:[~2016-05-30  7:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-05-26  8:31 [PATCH] mutex: Do not spin/queue before performing ww_mutex deadlock avoidance Chris Wilson
2016-05-26  9:02 ` ✗ Ro.CI.BAT: warning for " Patchwork
2016-05-26 10:37 ` [PATCH] " Maarten Lankhorst
2016-05-26 10:43   ` Chris Wilson
2016-05-26 11:08     ` Maarten Lankhorst
2016-05-26 20:08 ` [PATCH] mutex: Report recursive ww_mutex locking early Chris Wilson
2016-05-30  7:43   ` Maarten Lankhorst [this message]
2016-05-30  9:11     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-30  9:43       ` Maarten Lankhorst
2016-05-30 10:27         ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-30 10:45           ` Chris Wilson
2016-05-30 11:16             ` Maarten Lankhorst
2016-05-27  5:34 ` ✗ Ro.CI.BAT: warning for mutex: Do not spin/queue before performing ww_mutex deadlock avoidance (rev2) Patchwork

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=4271f89a-ab98-2d97-fccb-3527931597ec@linux.intel.com \
    --to=maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
    --cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox