From: Esben Nielsen <simlo@phys.au.dk>
To: David Singleton <dsingleton@mvista.com>
Cc: dino@in.ibm.com, <robustmutexes@lists.osdl.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: robust futex deadlock detection patch
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 21:16:33 +0100 (MET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0601092109520.18240-100000@lifa01.phys.au.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43C2C11F.4010408@mvista.com>
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, David Singleton wrote:
> Esben Nielsen wrote:
>
> >
> >I am a little bit confused when I read check_futex_deadlock():
> >It takes a parameter struct thread_info *ti and immediately do
> >struct task_struct *task = ti->task. Now we have the usual pair
> >(thread_info *ti, task_t *task) corresponding to the same process. Later
> >on in the function you do ti = lock_owner(lock), but do not update task.
> >Was this intented?
> >
> >
>
> Whoops. You are right. I've fixed the update to the task structure.
> The check_futex_deadlock()
> code now mirrors the existing check_deadlock() code.
>
> >Anyway, I can't see that you have locked the necesary raw_spin_locks.
> >Forinstance lock_owner(lock) must be called with the lock->wait_lock taken
> >and task->blocked_on needs task->pi_lock locked.
> >
> >
>
> Actually those locks are grabbed in the down_try_futex code. I hold
> both of those
> locks across the check for deadlocks and into __down_interruptible.
> Those locks
> need to be held for the check for deadlocks and holding
> them from down_try_futex to down_interruptible garuantees that a thread
> that enters the kernel to block on a lock will block on the lock. There
> is no
> window any more between dropping the robust_sem and mmap_sem
> and calling down_interruptible.
>
You only take the spinlocks corresponding to the current lock. What about
the next locks in the chain? Remember those locks might not be
futexes but a lock inside the kernel, taken in system calls. I.e. the
robust_sem might not protect you.
If there are n locks you need to lock n lock->wait_lock and n
owner->task->pi_lock as you traverse the locks. That is what I tried to
sketch in the examble below.
Esben
> This also fixed an SMP problem that Dave Carlson has been seeing on earlier
> patches.
>
> The new patch is at
>
> http://source.mvista.com/~dsingleton/patch-2.6.15-rt2-rf2
>
> David
>
> >To avoid deadlocks in all the deadlock detection you have to do the loop
> >something like
> >
> >for(owner = current; owner; ) {
> > raw_spin_lock(&owner->pi_lock);
> > if(owner->task->blocked_on) {
> > lock = owner->task->blocked_on->lock;
> > raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
> > owner2 = lock_owner(lock);
> > if(owner2) {
> > get_task_struct(owner2->task);
> > raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock)
> > raw_spin_unlock(&owner->pi_lock);
> > }
> > put_task_struct(owner->task);
> > owner = owner2;
> > if(owner2==current) DEADLOCK
> >}
> >
> >
> >Esben
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>David
> >>
> >>-
> >>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> >>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> >>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-09 20:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-12-14 22:39 Recursion bug in -rt Dinakar Guniguntala
2005-12-15 1:03 ` david singleton
2005-12-15 19:44 ` Dinakar Guniguntala
2005-12-15 20:40 ` David Singleton
2005-12-16 0:02 ` david singleton
2005-12-16 18:42 ` Dinakar Guniguntala
2005-12-16 21:26 ` David Singleton
2005-12-19 11:56 ` Dinakar Guniguntala
2005-12-19 20:11 ` David Singleton
2005-12-15 19:00 ` David Singleton
2005-12-15 19:52 ` Dinakar Guniguntala
2005-12-20 13:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-12-20 15:50 ` Dinakar Guniguntala
2005-12-20 17:43 ` Esben Nielsen
2005-12-20 19:33 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-12-20 20:42 ` Esben Nielsen
2005-12-20 21:20 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-12-20 21:55 ` david singleton
2005-12-20 22:56 ` Esben Nielsen
2005-12-20 23:12 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-12-20 23:55 ` Esben Nielsen
2005-12-22 4:37 ` david singleton
2005-12-20 22:43 ` Esben Nielsen
2005-12-20 22:59 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-01-03 1:54 ` david singleton
2006-01-05 2:14 ` david singleton
2006-01-05 9:43 ` Esben Nielsen
2006-01-05 17:11 ` david singleton
2006-01-05 17:47 ` Esben Nielsen
2006-01-05 18:26 ` david singleton
2006-01-07 2:40 ` robust futex deadlock detection patch david singleton
[not found] ` <a36005b50601071145y7e2ead9an4a4ca7896f35a85e@mail.gmail.com>
2006-01-07 19:49 ` Ulrich Drepper
2006-01-09 9:23 ` Esben Nielsen
2006-01-09 20:01 ` David Singleton
2006-01-09 20:16 ` Esben Nielsen [this message]
2006-01-09 21:08 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-01-09 21:19 ` Esben Nielsen
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=Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0601092109520.18240-100000@lifa01.phys.au.dk \
--to=simlo@phys.au.dk \
--cc=dino@in.ibm.com \
--cc=dsingleton@mvista.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=robustmutexes@lists.osdl.org \
/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).