[023/200] mutex: Fix optimistic spinning vs. BKL
diff mbox series

Message ID 20100701174248.378648025@clark.site
State New, archived
Headers show
  • stable review
Related show

Commit Message

Greg KH July 1, 2010, 5:41 p.m. UTC
2.6.34-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.


From: Tony Breeds <tony@bakeyournoodle.com>

commit fd6be105b883244127a734ac9f14ae94a022dcc0 upstream.

Currently, we can hit a nasty case with optimistic
spinning on mutexes:

    CPU A tries to take a mutex, while holding the BKL

    CPU B tried to take the BLK while holding the mutex

This looks like a AB-BA scenario but in practice, is
allowed and happens due to the auto-release on
schedule() nature of the BKL.

In that case, the optimistic spinning code can get us
into a situation where instead of going to sleep, A
will spin waiting for B who is spinning waiting for
A, and the only way out of that loop is the
need_resched() test in mutex_spin_on_owner().

This patch fixes it by completely disabling spinning
if we own the BKL. This adds one more detail to the
extensive list of reasons why it's a bad idea for
kernel code to be holding the BKL.

Signed-off-by: Tony Breeds <tony@bakeyournoodle.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
LKML-Reference: <20100519054636.GC12389@ozlabs.org>
[ added an unlikely() attribute to the branch ]
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>

 kernel/mutex.c |    7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

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/

diff mbox series

--- a/kernel/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/mutex.c
@@ -172,6 +172,13 @@  __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock,
 		struct thread_info *owner;
+		 * If we own the BKL, then don't spin. The owner of
+		 * the mutex might be waiting on us to release the BKL.
+		 */
+		if (unlikely(current->lock_depth >= 0))
+			break;
+		/*
 		 * If there's an owner, wait for it to either
 		 * release the lock or go to sleep.