Re: [RFC][PATCH -v2 4/4] locking/mutex: Add lock handoff to avoid starvation

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 06:00:19PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 08/25/2016 02:37 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >@@ -468,9 +496,12 @@ void __sched mutex_unlock(struct mutex *
> >  	DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(__mutex_owner(lock) != current);
> >  #endif
> >
> >-	owner = atomic_long_fetch_and(MUTEX_FLAGS,&lock->owner);
> >+	owner = atomic_long_read(&lock->owner);
> >+	if (!(owner&  MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF))
> >+		owner = atomic_long_fetch_and(MUTEX_FLAGS,&lock->owner);
> >+
> >  	if (__owner_flags(owner))
> >-		__mutex_unlock_slowpath(lock);
> >+		__mutex_unlock_slowpath(lock, owner);
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(mutex_unlock);
> 
> I don't think the race condition is fixed when we don't make sure that lock
> handoff only happens from current=>new. The problem is due to the fact that
> the MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF check in the unlock fastpath isn't serialized by the
> wait_lock. As a result, it is possible that the owner is NULL while the
> HANDOFF bit is set. Or an optimistic spinner may have stolen the lock in the
> interim.

You're right.. I'll try again tomorrow.