From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Esben Nielsen <nielsen.esben@googlemail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: rt_mutex_timed_lock() vs hrtimer_wakeup() race ?
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 09:58:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1154419117.5932.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060730043605.GA2894@oleg>
On Sun, 2006-07-30 at 08:36 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Another question, task_blocks_on_rt_mutex() does get_task_struct() and checks
> owner->pi_blocked_on != NULL under owner->pi_lock. Why ? RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS
> bit is set, we are holding ->wait_lock, so the 'owner' can't go away until
> we drop ->wait_lock. I think we can drop owner->pi_lock right after
> __rt_mutex_adjust_prio(owner), we can't miss owner->pi_blocked_on != NULL
> if it was true before we take owner->pi_lock, and this is the case we should
> worry about, yes?
No.
We hold lock->wait_lock. The owner of this lock can be blocked itself,
which makes it necessary to do the chain walk. The indicator is
owner->pi_blocked_on. This field is only protected by owner->pi_lock.
If we look at this field outside of owner->pi_lock, then we might miss a
chain walk.
CPU 0 CPU 1
lock lock->wait_lock
block_on_rt_mutex()
lock current->pi_lock
current->pi_blocked_on = waiter(lock)
unlock current->pi_lock
boost = owner->pi_blocked_on
owner blocks on lock2
lock owner->pi_lock
owner->pi_blocked_on = waiter(lock2)
unlock owner->pi_lock
lock owner->pi_lock
enqueue waiter
adjust prio
unlock owner->pi_lock
unlock lock->wait_lock
if boost
do_chain_walk()
->pi_blocked_on is protected by ->pi_lock and has to be read/modified
under this lock. That way we can not miss a chain walk:
CPU 0 CPU 1
lock lock->wait_lock
block_on_rt_mutex()
lock current->pi_lock
current->pi_blocked_on = waiter(lock)
unlock current->pi_lock
owner blocks on lock2
lock owner->pi_lock
owner->pi_blocked_on = waiter(lock2)
unlock owner->pi_lock
lock owner->pi_lock
enqueue waiter
adjust prio
boost = owner->pi_blocked_on
unlock owner->pi_lock
unlock lock->wait_lock
if boost
do_chain_walk()
CPU 0 CPU 1
lock lock->wait_lock
block_on_rt_mutex()
lock current->pi_lock
current->pi_blocked_on = waiter(lock)
unlock current->pi_lock
lock owner->pi_lock
enqueue waiter
adjust prio of owner
boost = owner->pi_blocked_on
unlock owner->pi_lock
unlock lock->wait_lock
owner blocks on lock2
lock owner->pi_lock
owner->pi_blocked_on = waiter(lock2)
unlock owner->pi_lock
if boost
do_chain_walk()
owner propagates the priority to owner(lock2)
get_task_struct() is there for a different reason. We have to protect
the gap where we hold _no_ lock in rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain:
retry:
lock task->pi_lock
block = task->pi_blocked_on->lock
if (! trylock block->wait_lock) {
unlock task->pi_lock
-> task could go away right here, if we do not hold a reference
cpu_relax()
goto retry
}
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-08-01 7:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-07-30 4:36 rt_mutex_timed_lock() vs hrtimer_wakeup() race ? Oleg Nesterov
2006-07-30 22:23 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-08-01 0:12 ` Oleg Nesterov
2006-07-31 20:47 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-08-01 7:58 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2006-08-01 12:07 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-08-01 12:52 ` Thomas Gleixner
2006-08-01 13:21 ` Steven Rostedt
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=1154419117.5932.55.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nielsen.esben@googlemail.com \
--cc=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.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