From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: [PATCH RT] locking/rtmutex: Clean ->pi_blocked_on in the error case
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2019 16:16:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191007141646.2qjo3d6pnzdrlr5l@linutronix.de> (raw)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
The function rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock() cleans ->pi_blocked_on in case
of failure (timeout, signal). The same cleanup is required in
__rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock().
In both the cases the tasks was interrupted by a signal or timeout while
acquiring the lock and after the interruption it longer blocks on the
lock.
Fixes: 1a1fb985f2e2b ("futex: Handle early deadlock return correctly")
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
---
This means I'm going to revert the raw_spinlock_t changes to
futex_hash_bucket, add back all futex fixes we had and put this one on
top.
kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
index 0649a33fb7e6c..bb5c09c49c504 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -2321,6 +2321,26 @@ void rt_mutex_proxy_unlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
rt_mutex_set_owner(lock, NULL);
}
+static void fixup_rt_mutex_blocked(struct rt_mutex *lock)
+{
+ struct task_struct *tsk = current;
+ /*
+ * RT has a problem here when the wait got interrupted by a timeout
+ * or a signal. task->pi_blocked_on is still set. The task must
+ * acquire the hash bucket lock when returning from this function.
+ *
+ * If the hash bucket lock is contended then the
+ * BUG_ON(rt_mutex_real_waiter(task->pi_blocked_on)) in
+ * task_blocks_on_rt_mutex() will trigger. This can be avoided by
+ * clearing task->pi_blocked_on which removes the task from the
+ * boosting chain of the rtmutex. That's correct because the task
+ * is not longer blocked on it.
+ */
+ raw_spin_lock(&tsk->pi_lock);
+ tsk->pi_blocked_on = NULL;
+ raw_spin_unlock(&tsk->pi_lock);
+}
+
/**
* __rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock() - Start lock acquisition for another task
* @lock: the rt_mutex to take
@@ -2393,6 +2413,9 @@ int __rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
ret = 0;
}
+ if (ret)
+ fixup_rt_mutex_blocked(lock);
+
debug_rt_mutex_print_deadlock(waiter);
return ret;
@@ -2473,7 +2496,6 @@ int rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
struct hrtimer_sleeper *to,
struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter)
{
- struct task_struct *tsk = current;
int ret;
raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
@@ -2485,23 +2507,8 @@ int rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
* have to fix that up.
*/
fixup_rt_mutex_waiters(lock);
- /*
- * RT has a problem here when the wait got interrupted by a timeout
- * or a signal. task->pi_blocked_on is still set. The task must
- * acquire the hash bucket lock when returning from this function.
- *
- * If the hash bucket lock is contended then the
- * BUG_ON(rt_mutex_real_waiter(task->pi_blocked_on)) in
- * task_blocks_on_rt_mutex() will trigger. This can be avoided by
- * clearing task->pi_blocked_on which removes the task from the
- * boosting chain of the rtmutex. That's correct because the task
- * is not longer blocked on it.
- */
- if (ret) {
- raw_spin_lock(&tsk->pi_lock);
- tsk->pi_blocked_on = NULL;
- raw_spin_unlock(&tsk->pi_lock);
- }
+ if (ret)
+ fixup_rt_mutex_blocked(lock);
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
--
2.23.0
reply other threads:[~2019-10-07 14:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=20191007141646.2qjo3d6pnzdrlr5l@linutronix.de \
--to=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).