From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: [PATCH] kernel/rtmutex: Handle non enqueued waiters gracefully in remove_waiter()
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 15:28:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180312142845.m4ohqyg3mak34umf@linutronix.de> (raw)
In -RT task_blocks_on_rt_mutex() may return with -EAGAIN due to
(->pi_blocked_on == PI_WAKEUP_INPROGRESS) before it added itself as a
waiter. In such a case we must not call remove_waiter() because without
a waiter it will trigger the BUG_ON() statement.
This was initially reported by Yimin Deng. Thomas Gleixner fixed it then
with an explicit check for waiters before calling remove_waiter() with
the following note:
| Guard it with rt_mutex_has_waiters(). This is a quick fix which is
| easy to backport. The proper fix is to have a central check in
| remove_waiter() so we can call it unconditionally.
This is the suggested change.
Now that it is possible to call remove_waiter() unconditionally I also
remove that check from rt_mutex_slowlock().
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAAh1qt=DCL9aUXNxanP5BKtiPp3m+qj4yB+gDohhXPVFCxWwzg@mail.gmail.com
Reported-and-debugged-by: Yimin Deng <yimin11.deng@gmail.com>
Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
---
kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 8 +++++---
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
index 65cc0cb984e6..57d28d8f5280 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -1068,12 +1068,15 @@ static void mark_wakeup_next_waiter(struct wake_q_head *wake_q,
static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mutex *lock,
struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter)
{
- bool is_top_waiter = (waiter == rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock));
+ bool is_top_waiter = false;
struct task_struct *owner = rt_mutex_owner(lock);
struct rt_mutex *next_lock;
lockdep_assert_held(&lock->wait_lock);
+ if (rt_mutex_has_waiters(lock))
+ is_top_waiter = waiter == rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock);
+
raw_spin_lock(¤t->pi_lock);
rt_mutex_dequeue(lock, waiter);
current->pi_blocked_on = NULL;
@@ -1268,8 +1271,7 @@ rt_mutex_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *lock, int state,
if (unlikely(ret)) {
__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
- if (rt_mutex_has_waiters(lock))
- remove_waiter(lock, &waiter);
+ remove_waiter(lock, &waiter);
rt_mutex_handle_deadlock(ret, chwalk, &waiter);
}
--
2.16.2
next reply other threads:[~2018-03-12 14:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-12 14:28 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [this message]
2018-03-16 12:20 ` [PATCH] kernel/rtmutex: Handle non enqueued waiters gracefully in remove_waiter() Peter Zijlstra
2018-03-19 15:11 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-03-27 12:14 ` [PATCH v2] locking/rtmutex: " Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-03-28 21:07 ` [tip:locking/core] " tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-11-04 14:35 kernel BUG at kernel/rtmutex_common.h:75 Yimin Deng
2015-11-06 14:41 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-11-07 18:09 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-11-08 3:31 ` Yimin Deng
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=20180312142845.m4ohqyg3mak34umf@linutronix.de \
--to=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.