From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934282AbdDFRWF (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:22:05 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:37938 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932565AbdDFRV4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:21:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 10:21:47 -0700 From: Darren Hart To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, 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: [PATCH -v6 05/13] futex: Change locking rules Message-ID: <20170406172147.GC7030@fury> References: <20170322103547.756091212@infradead.org> <20170322104151.751993333@infradead.org> <20170405211843.GA13494@fury> <20170406122832.l3ll5mavtu7awavy@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170406122832.l3ll5mavtu7awavy@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 02:28:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 02:18:43PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:35:52AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > + * > > > + * Serialization and lifetime rules: > > > + * > > > + * hb->lock: > > > + * > > > + * hb -> futex_q, relation > > > + * futex_q -> pi_state, relation > > > + * > > > + * (cannot be raw because hb can contain arbitrary amount > > > + * of futex_q's) > > > + * > > > + * pi_mutex->wait_lock: > > > + * > > > + * {uval, pi_state} > > > + * > > > + * (and pi_mutex 'obviously') > > > + * > > > + * p->pi_lock: > > > > This documentation uses a mix of types and common variable names. I'd recommend > > some declarations just below "Serialization and lifetime rules:" to help make > > this explicit, e.g.: > > > > struct futex_pi_state *pi_state; > > struct futex_hash_bucket *hb; > > struct rt_mutex *pi_mutex; > > struct futex_q *q; > > task_struct *p; > > Yeah, not convinced it helps much. If you're stuck at that level, the > rest of futex is going to make your head explode. It just presented one more fork in the mindmap to go confirm types and names so I was sure I was thinking of the same things as what was documented. Being explicit avoids unnecessary confusion, reduces thought errors, and takes minimal effort on our part. Well worth it IMHO. > > > > @@ -980,10 +1013,12 @@ void exit_pi_state_list(struct task_stru > > > * the pi_state against the user space value. If correct, attach to > > > * it. > > > */ > > > +static int attach_to_pi_state(u32 __user *uaddr, u32 uval, > > > + struct futex_pi_state *pi_state, > > > struct futex_pi_state **ps) > > > { > > > pid_t pid = uval & FUTEX_TID_MASK; > > > + int ret, uval2; > > > > The uval should be an unsigned type: > > > > u32 uval2; > > Right you are. > > > > > > > /* > > > * Userspace might have messed up non-PI and PI futexes [3] > > > @@ -991,9 +1026,34 @@ static int attach_to_pi_state(u32 uval, > > > if (unlikely(!pi_state)) > > > return -EINVAL; > > > > > > + /* > > > + * We get here with hb->lock held, and having found a > > > + * futex_top_waiter(). This means that futex_lock_pi() of said futex_q > > > + * has dropped the hb->lock in between queue_me() and unqueue_me_pi(), > > > > This context got here like this: > > > > futex_lock_pi > > hb lock > > futex_lock_pi_atomic > > top waiter > > attach_to_pi_state() > > > > The queue_me and unqueue_me_pi both come after this in futex_lock_pi. > > Also, the hb lock is dropped in queue_me, not between queue_me and > > unqueue_me_pi. > > > > Are you saying that in order to be here, there are at least two tasks contending > > for the lock, and one that has come before us has proceeded as far as queue_me() > > but has not yet entered unqueue_me_pi(), therefor we know there is a waiter and > > it has a pi_state? If so, I think we can make this much clearer by at least > > noting the two tasks in play. > > The point is that this other task must have a reference, and since we > now hold hb->lock, it cannot go away. OK, so yes, two tasks. Noting the two task contexts somewhere in that comment block would make this easier to follow - which is why we're adding the comment. > > > @@ -1336,6 +1418,7 @@ static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uad > > > > > > if (cmpxchg_futex_value_locked(&curval, uaddr, uval, newval)) { > > > ret = -EFAULT; > > > + > > > > Stray whitespace addition? Not explicitly against coding-style, but I don't > > normally see a new line before the closing brace leading to an else... > > I found it more readable that way. Sod checkpatch and co ;-) Heh, I didn't run checkpatch, just found it odd and unrelated. I hesitate to call you on style and superfluous change - but hey, if I'd make the comment to people contributing to platform drivers, it would be hypocritical not to do the same for you :-) And, if the feedback doesn't apply at this level, then I should drop it as a barrier for the platform drivers - so serves as a good litmus test. -- Darren Hart VMware Open Source Technology Center