Re: [RFC PATCH 01/13] futex2: Implement wait and wake functions

["André Almeida" <andrealmeid@collabora.com>]

Hi Peter,

Às 06:02 de 16/02/21, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 12:23:52PM -0300, André Almeida wrote:
>> +static int __futex_wait(struct futexv_head *futexv, unsigned int nr_futexes,
>> +			struct hrtimer_sleeper *timeout)
>> +{
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	while (1) {
>> +		int awakened = -1;
>> +
> 
> Might be easier to understand if the set_current_state() is here,
> instead of squirreled away in futex_enqueue().
> 

I placed set_current_state() inside futex_enqueue() because we need to 
set RUNNING and then INTERRUPTIBLE again for the retry path.

>> +		ret = futex_enqueue(futexv, nr_futexes, &awakened);
>> +
>> +		if (ret) {
>> +			if (awakened >= 0)
>> +				return awakened;
>> +			return ret;
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		/* Before sleeping, check if someone was woken */
>> +		if (!futexv->hint && (!timeout || timeout->task))
>> +			freezable_schedule();
>> +
>> +		__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> 
> This is typically after the loop.
> 

Sorry, which loop?

>> +
>> +		/*
>> +		 * One of those things triggered this wake:
>> +		 *
>> +		 * * We have been removed from the bucket. futex_wake() woke
>> +		 *   us. We just need to dequeue and return 0 to userspace.
>> +		 *
>> +		 * However, if no futex was dequeued by a futex_wake():
>> +		 *
>> +		 * * If the there's a timeout and it has expired,
>> +		 *   return -ETIMEDOUT.
>> +		 *
>> +		 * * If there is a signal pending, something wants to kill our
>> +		 *   thread, return -ERESTARTSYS.
>> +		 *
>> +		 * * If there's no signal pending, it was a spurious wake
>> +		 *   (scheduler gave us a change to do some work, even if we
> 
> chance?

Indeed, fixed.

> 
>> +		 *   don't want to). We need to remove ourselves from the
>> +		 *   bucket and add again, to prevent losing wakeups in the
>> +		 *   meantime.
>> +		 */
> 
> Anyway, doing a dequeue and enqueue for spurious wakes is a bit of an
> anti-pattern that can lead to starvation. I've not actually looked at
> much detail yet as this is my first read-through, but did figure I'd
> mention it.
> 

So we could just leave everything enqueued for spurious wake? I was 
expecting that we would need to do all the work again (including 
rechecking *uaddr == val) to see if we didn't miss a futex_wake() 
between the kernel thread waking (spuriously) and going to sleep again.

>> +
>> +		ret = futex_dequeue_multiple(futexv, nr_futexes);
>> +
>> +		/* Normal wake */
>> +		if (ret >= 0)
>> +			return ret;
>> +
>> +		if (timeout && !timeout->task)
>> +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
>> +
>> +		if (signal_pending(current))
>> +			return -ERESTARTSYS;
>> +
>> +		/* Spurious wake, do everything again */
>> +	}
>> +}

Thanks,
	André