From: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
To: Maarten Lankhorst <m.b.lankhorst@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: rt_mutex: restore wait_lock init in __rt_mutex_init
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:43:40 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E30322C.5000309@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4E3021E6.30409@gmail.com>
On 07/27/2011 07:34 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> On 07/27/2011 11:37 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Darren Hart wrote:
>>
>>> Without the raw_spin_lock_init(), the wait_lock does not get properly
>>> initialized with CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK. This can manifest in a BUG() in the
>>> futex requeue_pi path when the pi_state->pi_mutex->wait_lock fails the magic
>>> test in rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock()->raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock).
>> That's actively wrong. You reinitialize the lock for all other cases
>> which call this via rt_mutex_init(). There is a reason why I moved the
>> spin lock initializer out of __rt_mutex_init() into
>> rt_mutex_init().
Ah... I didn't notice the move. I saw the change to the line after which
add _raw and passed the wait_lock and thought it was expected that that
call did the init (which it doesn't).
>> The lock name stuff for lockdep ends up to be
>> "lock->wait_lock" for all rt_mutexes, which is pretty useless when you
>> have to analyze a lockdep splat. Thanks for finding it nevertheless.
Right, makes sense.
>> So the correct fix is:
>>
>> Index: linux-2.6/kernel/rtmutex.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/rtmutex.c
>> +++ linux-2.6/kernel/rtmutex.c
>> @@ -1296,7 +1296,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__rt_mutex_init);
>> void rt_mutex_init_proxy_locked(struct rt_mutex *lock,
>> struct task_struct *proxy_owner)
>> {
>> - __rt_mutex_init(lock, NULL);
>> + rt_mutex_init(lock);
So obvious now in hindsight :)
>> debug_rt_mutex_proxy_lock(lock, proxy_owner);
>> rt_mutex_set_owner(lock, proxy_owner);
>> rt_mutex_deadlock_account_lock(lock, proxy_owner);
>>
>>
> Seems to work. I no longer get a warning from pulseaudio either.
I still don't understand how pulseaudio ever caused this.
> Also darren, at least on fedora 15 glibc supports requeue_pi.
> support for that is in nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/pthread_cond_*.S
Duh, sorry, wasn't thinking straight. The requeue_pi support went in a
while ago - what is missing is PI aware condvars which complete
requeue_pi support.
Thanks!
--
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel
prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-27 15:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-27 8:18 rt_mutex: restore wait_lock init in __rt_mutex_init Darren Hart
2011-07-27 9:37 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-07-27 14:34 ` Maarten Lankhorst
2011-07-27 15:43 ` Darren Hart [this message]
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=4E30322C.5000309@linux.intel.com \
--to=dvhart@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=m.b.lankhorst@gmail.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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