From: Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: "lkml, " <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RT] futex: protect against pi_blocked_on corruption during requeue PI -V2
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:59:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C3CB7A5.7010406@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1007131348180.3321@localhost.localdomain>
On 07/13/2010 04:52 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>
>> This code causes braindamage. I really wonder whether we need to
>> remove it according to the "United Nations Convention against Torture
>> and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment".
>>
>
> Ok, finally managed to twist my brain around it. Mike, can you give it
> a test ride ?
Since Mike is out I built this version and ran it a few times. I saw a
100% reproduction rate previously. I haven't seen any errors in a
handful of runs (~10) with this patch.
I do still see the hrtimer latency message on the first run, so this is
likely unrelated to the issue we're addressing:
Jul 13 14:47:59 elm9m94 kernel: hrtimer: interrupt took 123924 ns
As for Thomas's changes, only a couple nitpics below:
> @@ -2255,18 +2265,51 @@ static int futex_wait_requeue_pi(u32 __u
> /* Queue the futex_q, drop the hb lock, wait for wakeup. */
> futex_wait_queue_me(hb,&q, to);
>
> - spin_lock(&hb->lock);
> - ret = handle_early_requeue_pi_wakeup(hb,&q,&key2, to);
> - spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
> - if (ret)
> - goto out_put_keys;
> + /*
> + * Avoid races with requeue and trying to block on two mutexes
> + * (hb->lock and uaddr2's rtmutex) by serializing access to
> + * pi_blocked_on with pi_lock.
> + */
> + raw_spin_lock_irq(¤t->pi_lock);
> + if (current->pi_blocked_on) {
> + /* Requeue happened already */
This comment isn't quite accurate. The requeue may be in progress, which
means the q.lock_ptr is not trustworthy as noted below. Consider:
/*
* We have been requeued, or are in the process
* of being requeued.
*/
> + raw_spin_unlock_irq(¤t->pi_lock);
> + } else {
> + /*
> + * Setting pi_blocked_on to PI_WAKEUP_INPROGRESS
> + * prevents a concurrent requeue from enqueuein us on
s/enqueuein/enqueueing/ not that my dictionary thinks either one of
them are words ;-)
--
Darren Hart
IBM Linux Technology Center
Real-Time Linux Team
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-07-13 19:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-07-07 4:46 2.6.33.[56]-rt23: howto create repeatable explosion in wakeup_next_waiter() Mike Galbraith
2010-07-07 8:03 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-07-07 11:57 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-07-07 12:50 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-07-07 11:57 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-07-07 14:03 ` Darren Hart
2010-07-07 14:17 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-07-08 12:05 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-07-08 14:12 ` Darren Hart
2010-07-09 2:11 ` Darren Hart
2010-07-09 4:32 ` Mike Galbraith
[not found] ` <4C36CD83.6070809@us.ibm.com>
2010-07-09 8:13 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-07-09 13:58 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-07-09 14:51 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-07-09 16:35 ` Darren Hart
2010-07-09 19:34 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-07-09 20:05 ` Darren Hart
2010-07-13 8:03 ` [PATCH][RT] futex: protect against pi_blocked_on corruption during requeue PI Darren Hart
2010-07-13 9:25 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-07-13 10:28 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-07-13 11:52 ` [PATCH][RT] futex: protect against pi_blocked_on corruption during requeue PI -V2 Thomas Gleixner
2010-07-13 15:57 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-07-13 18:59 ` Darren Hart [this message]
2010-07-18 8:32 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-07-13 9:58 ` [PATCH][RT] futex: protect against pi_blocked_on corruption during requeue PI Thomas Gleixner
2010-07-07 14:11 ` 2.6.33.[56]-rt23: howto create repeatable explosion in wakeup_next_waiter() gowrishankar
2010-07-07 14:31 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-07-07 15:05 ` Darren Hart
2010-07-07 17:45 ` Mike Galbraith
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=4C3CB7A5.7010406@us.ibm.com \
--to=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=jkacur@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).