From: Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: futex: race in lock and unlock&exit for robust futex with PI?
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:35:14 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C253D32.6040304@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C24ED34.9040808@us.ibm.com>
On 06/25/2010 10:53 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
> On 06/25/2010 01:27 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Thu 24-06-10 19:42:50, Darren Hart wrote:
>>> On 06/23/2010 02:13 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>> attached you can find a simple test case which fails quite easily on
>>>> the
>>>> following glibc assert:
>>>> "SharedMutexTest: pthread_mutex_lock.c:289: __pthread_mutex_lock:
>>>> Assertion `(-(e)) != 3 || !robust' failed." "
>>>
>>> I've run runSimple.sh in a tight loop for a couple hours (about 2k
>>> iterations so far) and haven't seen anything other than "Here we go"
>>> printed to the console.
>>
>> Maybe a higher load on CPUs would help (busy loop on other CPUs).
>
> Must have been a build issue. I can reproduce _something_ now. Within 10
> iterations of runSimple.sh the test hangs. ps shows all the simple
> processes sitting in pause.
>
> (gdb) bt
> #0 0x0000003c0060e030 in __pause_nocancel () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0
> #1 0x0000003c006085fc in __pthread_mutex_lock_full ()
> from /lib64/libpthread.so.0
> #2 0x0000000000400cd6 in main (argc=1, argv=0x7fffc016e508) at simple.c:101
>
> There is only one call to pause* in pthread_mutex_lock.c: (line ~316):
>
> /* ESRCH can happen only for non-robust PI mutexes where
> the owner of the lock died. */
> assert (INTERNAL_SYSCALL_ERRNO (e, __err) != ESRCH || !robust);
>
> /* Delay the thread indefinitely. */
> while (1)
> pause_not_cancel ();
>
> Right now I'm thinking that NDEBUG is set in my build for whatever
> reason, but I think I'm seeing the same issue you are. I'll review the
> futex code and prepare a trace patch and see if I can reproduce with that.
>
> Note: confirmed, the glibc rpm has -DNDEBUG=1
The simple tracing patch (below) confirms that we are indeed returning
-ESRCH to userspace from futex_lock_pi(). Notice that the pids of the
two "simple" processes lingering after the runSimple.sh script are the
ones that return -ESRCH to userspace, and therefor end up in the
pause_not_cancel() trap inside glibc.
# trace-cmd record -p nop ./runSimple.sh
<snip>
# ps -eLo pid,comm,wchan | grep "simple "
20636 simple pause
20876 simple pause
# trace-cmd report
version = 6
CPU 0 is empty
cpus=4
field->offset = 24 size=8
<...>-20636 [003] 1778.965860: bprint: futex_lock_pi_atomic : lookup_pi_state: -ESRCH
<...>-20636 [003] 1778.965865: bprint: futex_lock_pi_atomic : ownerdied not detected, returning -ESRCH
<...>-20636 [003] 1778.965866: bprint: futex_lock_pi_atomic : lookup_pi_state: -3
>>---> <...>-20636 [003] 1778.965867: bprint: futex_lock_pi : returning -ESRCH to userspace
<...>-20876 [001] 1780.199394: bprint: futex_lock_pi_atomic : cmpxchg failed, retrying
<...>-20876 [001] 1780.199400: bprint: futex_lock_pi_atomic : lookup_pi_state: -ESRCH
<...>-20876 [001] 1780.199401: bprint: futex_lock_pi_atomic : ownerdied not detected, returning -ESRCH
<...>-20876 [001] 1780.199402: bprint: futex_lock_pi_atomic : lookup_pi_state: -3
>>---> <...>-20876 [001] 1780.199403: bprint: futex_lock_pi : returning -ESRCH to userspace
<...>-21316 [002] 1782.300695: bprint: futex_lock_pi_atomic : cmpxchg failed, retrying
<...>-21316 [002] 1782.300698: bprint: futex_lock_pi_atomic : cmpxchg failed, retrying
Attaching gdb to 20636, we can see the state of the mutex:
(gdb) print (struct __pthread_mutex_s)*mutex
$1 = {__lock = 0, __count = 1, __owner = 0, __nusers = 0, __kind = 176, __spins = 0, __list = {__prev = 0x0, __next = 0x0}}
This is consistent with hex dump of the first bits of the backing file:
# xxd test.file | head -n 3
0000000: 0000 0000 0100 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 ................
0000010: b000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 ................
0000020: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 ................
The futex (__lock) value is 0, indicating it is unlocked and has no waiters. The count being 1 however suggests a task has acquired it once, which, if I read the glibc source correctly, means the owner field and __lock fields should not be 0. This supports Michal's thought about lock racing with unlock, seeing it's held, then unable to find the owner (pi_state) as it has since been unlocked. Possibly some horkage with the WAITERS bit leading to glibc performing atomic acquistions/releases and rendering the mutex inconsistent with the kernel's view. This should be protected against, but that is the direction I am going to start looking.
--
Darren Hart
>From 92014a07df73489460ff788274506255ff0f775d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:54:25 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] robust pi futex tracing
---
kernel/futex.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++----
1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c
index e7a35f1..24ac437 100644
--- a/kernel/futex.c
+++ b/kernel/futex.c
@@ -683,6 +683,8 @@ retry:
*/
if (unlikely(ownerdied || !(curval & FUTEX_TID_MASK))) {
/* Keep the OWNER_DIED bit */
+ if (ownerdied)
+ trace_printk("ownerdied, taking over lock\n");
newval = (curval & ~FUTEX_TID_MASK) | task_pid_vnr(task);
ownerdied = 0;
lock_taken = 1;
@@ -692,14 +694,18 @@ retry:
if (unlikely(curval == -EFAULT))
return -EFAULT;
- if (unlikely(curval != uval))
+ if (unlikely(curval != uval)) {
+ trace_printk("cmpxchg failed, retrying\n");
goto retry;
+ }
/*
* We took the lock due to owner died take over.
*/
- if (unlikely(lock_taken))
+ if (unlikely(lock_taken)) {
+ trace_printk("ownerdied, lock acquired, return 1\n");
return 1;
+ }
/*
* We dont have the lock. Look up the PI state (or create it if
@@ -710,13 +716,16 @@ retry:
if (unlikely(ret)) {
switch (ret) {
case -ESRCH:
+ trace_printk("lookup_pi_state: -ESRCH\n");
/*
* No owner found for this futex. Check if the
* OWNER_DIED bit is set to figure out whether
* this is a robust futex or not.
*/
- if (get_futex_value_locked(&curval, uaddr))
+ if (get_futex_value_locked(&curval, uaddr)) {
+ trace_printk("get_futex_value_locked: -EFAULT\n");
return -EFAULT;
+ }
/*
* We simply start over in case of a robust
@@ -724,10 +733,13 @@ retry:
* and return happy.
*/
if (curval & FUTEX_OWNER_DIED) {
+ trace_printk("ownerdied, goto retry\n");
ownerdied = 1;
goto retry;
}
+ trace_printk("ownerdied not detected, returning -ESRCH\n");
default:
+ trace_printk("lookup_pi_state: %d\n", ret);
break;
}
}
@@ -1950,6 +1962,8 @@ retry_private:
put_futex_key(fshared, &q.key);
cond_resched();
goto retry;
+ case -ESRCH:
+ trace_printk("returning -ESRCH to userspace\n");
default:
goto out_unlock_put_key;
}
@@ -2537,8 +2551,10 @@ void exit_robust_list(struct task_struct *curr)
/*
* Avoid excessively long or circular lists:
*/
- if (!--limit)
+ if (!--limit) {
+ trace_printk("excessively long list, aborting\n");
break;
+ }
cond_resched();
}
--
1.7.0.4
--
Darren Hart
IBM Linux Technology Center
Real-Time Linux Team
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-25 23:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-06-23 9:13 futex: race in lock and unlock&exit for robust futex with PI? Michal Hocko
2010-06-25 2:42 ` Darren Hart
2010-06-25 8:27 ` Michal Hocko
2010-06-25 17:53 ` Darren Hart
2010-06-25 23:35 ` Darren Hart [this message]
2010-06-28 14:42 ` Michal Hocko
2010-06-28 14:56 ` Darren Hart
2010-06-28 15:32 ` Michal Hocko
2010-06-28 15:40 ` Michal Hocko
2010-06-28 15:58 ` Michal Hocko
2010-06-28 16:39 ` Michal Hocko
2010-06-28 16:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-28 16:56 ` Michal Hocko
2010-06-28 16:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-29 8:42 ` [PATCH] futex: futex_find_get_task make credentials check conditional Michal Hocko
2010-06-29 14:56 ` Darren Hart
2010-06-29 15:24 ` Michal Hocko
2010-06-29 16:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-06-29 16:58 ` Darren Hart
2010-06-29 18:03 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-06-30 7:01 ` Michal Hocko
2010-06-30 9:55 ` [PATCH] futex: futex_find_get_task remove credentails check Michal Hocko
2010-06-30 16:43 ` Darren Hart
2010-07-08 9:28 ` Michal Hocko
2010-07-08 9:32 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-07-08 9:39 ` Michal Hocko
2010-07-08 9:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-07-08 9:50 ` Michal Hocko
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=4C253D32.6040304@us.ibm.com \
--to=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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