All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/rtmutex: Handle non enqueued waiters gracefully in remove_waiter()
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 16:11:31 +0100 (CET)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1803191611120.2010@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180316122041.GE4064@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Fri, 16 Mar 2018, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 03:28:45PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > 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));
> 
> I'm a little confused, but isn't it easier to make rt_mutex_top_waiter()
> return NULL if there aren't in fact any waiters?

That works as well.

Thanks,

	tglx

> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h b/kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h
> index 68686b3ec3c1..70bcafc385c4 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h
> @@ -52,11 +52,13 @@ static inline int rt_mutex_has_waiters(struct rt_mutex *lock)
>  static inline struct rt_mutex_waiter *
>  rt_mutex_top_waiter(struct rt_mutex *lock)
>  {
> -	struct rt_mutex_waiter *w;
> +	struct rb_node *leftmost = rb_first_cached(&lock->waiters);
> +	struct rt_mutex_waiter *w = NULL;
>  
> -	w = rb_entry(lock->waiters.rb_leftmost,
> -		     struct rt_mutex_waiter, tree_entry);
> -	BUG_ON(w->lock != lock);
> +	if (leftmost) {
> +		w = rb_entry(leftmost, struct rt_mutex_waiter, tree_entry);
> +		BUG_ON(w->lock != lock);
> +	}
>  
>  	return w;
>  }
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2018-03-19 15:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-03-12 14:28 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-03-16 12:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-03-19 15:11   ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
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=alpine.DEB.2.21.1803191611120.2010@nanos.tec.linutronix.de \
    --to=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] kernel/rtmutex: Handle non enqueued waiters gracefully in remove_waiter()' \
    /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

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.