From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Darren Hart <darren@dvhart.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com>,
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/3] futex/rtmutex: Fix issues exposed by trinity
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 17:17:35 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5373DD6F.40506@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140514092203.GE30445@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 05/14/2014 05:22 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> I believe the thinking goes that if we get to here, then the lock is in an
>>> inconsistent state (between kernel and userspace). I don't have an answer for
>>> why pausing forever would be preferable to returning an error however...
>>
>> What error would we return?
>
> EDEADLK is a valid user return for pthread_mutex_lock() as per:
>
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/pthread_mutex_lock.html
How is that correct? It isn't a deadlock we've detected but inconsistent
state between glibc and the kernel. In this case glibc should assert.
Delaying indefinitely with pause() never seems correct (despite that being
what we do today).
>> This particular case is a serious error for which we have no good error code
>> to return to userspace. It's an implementation defect, a bug, we should probably
>> assert instead of pausing.
>
> No, its perfectly fine to have a lock sequence abort with -EDEADLK.
> Userspace should release its locks and re-attempt.
I agree. If I can prove that it's actually a deadlock, and
that unlock/relock will work to fix it, then we can arrange for glibc
to return EDEADLK.
> You can implement usable locking schemes using this error, like
> wound/wait locking.
Agreed.
>> We can't cancel the stuck thread because pthread_mutex_lock is not a cancellation
>> point.
>>
>> In practice the rest of the application can make forward progress with a single
>> thread stuck. You can attach the debugger and inspect state, so it's useful
>> from that perspective.
>
> That's just totally braindead. Return EDEADLK to userspace already, let
> the user deal with it.
Not all cases where EDEADLK returns is it such a case that the user
can make forward progress, it might be a corrupt state, in which case
if we detect the corrupt state I would assert. Otherwise, yes, we can
return EDEADLK and let the user figure it out.
Does that make sense?
Cheers,
Carlos.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-14 21:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-12 20:45 [patch 0/3] futex/rtmutex: Fix issues exposed by trinity Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-12 20:45 ` [patch 1/3] rtmutex: Add missing deadlock check Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-13 5:51 ` Lai Jiangshan
2014-05-13 8:45 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-13 8:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-13 16:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-05-13 19:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-13 20:20 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-05-13 20:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-05-13 21:27 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-13 22:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-05-13 22:44 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-05-13 23:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-05-13 23:53 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-05-14 0:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-05-14 6:54 ` Thomas Gleixner
[not found] ` <CAGChsmO9GO1Z2VBbw7uLtTXpYowdoUQbK8C3=Dt2jtGAnc6D2A@mail.gmail.com>
2014-05-14 13:33 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-14 6:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-14 12:59 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-12 20:45 ` [patch 2/3] futex: Add another early deadlock detection check Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-19 12:22 ` [tip:core/urgent] " tip-bot for Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-12 20:45 ` [patch 3/3] futex: Prevent attaching to kernel threads Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-12 20:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-12 21:16 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-12 21:59 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2014-05-12 22:18 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-19 12:22 ` [tip:core/urgent] " tip-bot for Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-12 21:37 ` [patch 0/3] futex/rtmutex: Fix issues exposed by trinity Steven Rostedt
2014-05-12 21:52 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-12 22:08 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-05-12 22:37 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-12 23:18 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-05-13 6:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-05-13 3:54 ` Darren Hart
2014-05-13 9:08 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-14 7:06 ` Carlos O'Donell
2014-05-14 10:26 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-14 20:59 ` Carlos O'Donell
2014-05-14 22:54 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-15 7:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-15 8:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-16 18:21 ` Carlos O'Donell
2014-05-14 6:58 ` Carlos O'Donell
2014-05-14 9:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-14 21:17 ` Carlos O'Donell [this message]
2014-05-14 23:11 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-16 17:54 ` Carlos O'Donell
2014-05-15 8:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-16 18:14 ` Carlos O'Donell
2014-05-14 9:53 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-14 10:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-14 10:28 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-16 17:55 ` Carlos O'Donell
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=5373DD6F.40506@redhat.com \
--to=carlos@redhat.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=darren@dvhart.com \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=davidlohr@hp.com \
--cc=dvhart@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=roland@hack.frob.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=williams@redhat.com \
/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