From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751743AbcJJLkw (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 10 Oct 2016 07:40:52 -0400
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:56342 "EHLO
        merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751130AbcJJLkv (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 10 Oct 2016 07:40:51 -0400
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 13:40:10 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, juri.lelli@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        xlpang@redhat.com, bigeasy@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, jdesfossez@efficios.com,
        bristot@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/4] futex: Rewrite FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
Message-ID: <20161010114010.GM3568@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20161003091234.879763059@infradead.org>
 <20161003091847.704255067@infradead.org>
 <20161007112143.GJ3117@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610081726270.5222@nanos>
 <20161008165540.GI3568@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610101215040.7166@nanos>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610101215040.7166@nanos>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22.1 (2013-10-16)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 12:17:48PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> There is another problem with all that racing against fixup_owner()
> resp. fixup_pi_state_owner().
> 
> I fear, we need to rethink this whole locking/protection scheme from
> scratch.


So for pi_state (ie, the attach_to_pi_state() vs put_pi_state() race) I
can see two options, either we re-take hb->lock after we've completed
the futex_unlock_pi() in order to drop it, which is cringe worthy, or we
make pi_state RCU freed and replace that WARN_ON() in
attach_to_pi_state() with an atomic_inc_not_zero() and deal with the
fail case by going back to the caller and treating it like !top_waiter.


As to the rt_mutex vs futex state coherence, I think I can do all of
that with rt_mutex::wait_lock held, the alternative is doing part with
hb->lock and part with rt_mutex::wait_lock and parts with both, but
that's already hurting my head and I didn't even try yet.


Let me think a wee bit more on this..