futex: Futex_unlock_pi() determinism
The problem with returning -EAGAIN when the waiter state mismatches is that it becomes very hard to proof a bounded execution time on the operation. And seeing that this is a RT operation, this is somewhat important. While in practise; given the previous patch; it will be very unlikely to ever really take more than one or two rounds, proving so becomes rather hard. However, now that modifying wait_list is done while holding both hb->lock and wait_lock, the scenario can be avoided entirely by acquiring wait_lock while still holding hb-lock. Doing a hand-over, without leaving a hole. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: juri.lelli@arm.com Cc: bigeasy@linutronix.de Cc: xlpang@redhat.com Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org Cc: mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com Cc: jdesfossez@efficios.com Cc: dvhart@infradead.org Cc: bristot@redhat.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170322104152.112378812@infradead.org Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
This commit is contained in:
parent
cfafcd117d
commit
bebe5b5143
|
@ -1398,15 +1398,10 @@ static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uaddr, u32 uval, struct futex_pi_state *pi_
|
||||||
DEFINE_WAKE_Q(wake_q);
|
DEFINE_WAKE_Q(wake_q);
|
||||||
int ret = 0;
|
int ret = 0;
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
raw_spin_lock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
|
|
||||||
new_owner = rt_mutex_next_owner(&pi_state->pi_mutex);
|
new_owner = rt_mutex_next_owner(&pi_state->pi_mutex);
|
||||||
if (!new_owner) {
|
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!new_owner)) {
|
||||||
/*
|
/*
|
||||||
* Since we held neither hb->lock nor wait_lock when coming
|
* As per the comment in futex_unlock_pi() this should not happen.
|
||||||
* into this function, we could have raced with futex_lock_pi()
|
|
||||||
* such that we might observe @this futex_q waiter, but the
|
|
||||||
* rt_mutex's wait_list can be empty (either still, or again,
|
|
||||||
* depending on which side we land).
|
|
||||||
*
|
*
|
||||||
* When this happens, give up our locks and try again, giving
|
* When this happens, give up our locks and try again, giving
|
||||||
* the futex_lock_pi() instance time to complete, either by
|
* the futex_lock_pi() instance time to complete, either by
|
||||||
|
@ -2794,15 +2789,18 @@ retry:
|
||||||
if (pi_state->owner != current)
|
if (pi_state->owner != current)
|
||||||
goto out_unlock;
|
goto out_unlock;
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
/*
|
|
||||||
* Grab a reference on the pi_state and drop hb->lock.
|
|
||||||
*
|
|
||||||
* The reference ensures pi_state lives, dropping the hb->lock
|
|
||||||
* is tricky.. wake_futex_pi() will take rt_mutex::wait_lock to
|
|
||||||
* close the races against futex_lock_pi(), but in case of
|
|
||||||
* _any_ fail we'll abort and retry the whole deal.
|
|
||||||
*/
|
|
||||||
get_pi_state(pi_state);
|
get_pi_state(pi_state);
|
||||||
|
/*
|
||||||
|
* Since modifying the wait_list is done while holding both
|
||||||
|
* hb->lock and wait_lock, holding either is sufficient to
|
||||||
|
* observe it.
|
||||||
|
*
|
||||||
|
* By taking wait_lock while still holding hb->lock, we ensure
|
||||||
|
* there is no point where we hold neither; and therefore
|
||||||
|
* wake_futex_pi() must observe a state consistent with what we
|
||||||
|
* observed.
|
||||||
|
*/
|
||||||
|
raw_spin_lock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
|
||||||
spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
|
spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
ret = wake_futex_pi(uaddr, uval, pi_state);
|
ret = wake_futex_pi(uaddr, uval, pi_state);
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue