| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0812191309540.26432@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:36:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Clark Williams <clark.williams@...il.com>,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Linux-rt <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 4/7] rtmutex: unify state manipulation
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> The manipulation of the waiter task state is copied all over the place
> with slightly different details. Use one set of functions to reduce
> duplicated code and make the handling consistent for all instances.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> ---
> kernel/rtmutex.c | 104 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6.24/kernel/rtmutex.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.24.orig/kernel/rtmutex.c
> +++ linux-2.6.24/kernel/rtmutex.c
> @@ -765,13 +765,6 @@ rt_spin_lock_fastunlock(struct rt_mutex
> slowfn(lock);
> }
>
> -static inline void
> -update_current(unsigned long new_state, unsigned long *saved_state)
> -{
> - unsigned long state = xchg(¤t->state, new_state);
> - if (unlikely(state == TASK_RUNNING))
> - *saved_state = TASK_RUNNING;
> -}
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> static int adaptive_wait(struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter,
> @@ -803,6 +796,43 @@ static int adaptive_wait(struct rt_mutex
> #endif
>
> /*
> + * The state setting needs to preserve the original state and needs to
> + * take care of non rtmutex wakeups.
> + *
> + * The special case here is TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE: We cannot set the
> + * blocked state to TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE as we would miss wakeups from
> + * wake_up_interruptible().
> + */
> +static inline unsigned long
> +rt_set_current_blocked_state(unsigned long saved_state)
> +{
> + unsigned long state, block_state;
> +
> + do {
> + state = current->state;
> + /*
> + * Take care of non rtmutex wakeups. rtmutex wakeups
> + * set the state to TASK_RUNNING_MUTEX.
> + */
> + if (state == TASK_RUNNING)
> + saved_state = TASK_RUNNING;
> +
> + block_state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE;
> +
> + } while (cmpxchg(¤t->state, state, block_state) != state);
Doesn't this break archs that do not have cmpxchg?
There might be another way. We could just use your TASK_RUNNING_MUTEX or
trick for both mutexes and spinlocks.
> +
> + return saved_state;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void rt_restore_current_state(unsigned long saved_state)
> +{
> + unsigned long state = xchg(¤t->state, saved_state);
> +
> + if (state == TASK_RUNNING)
> + current->state = TASK_RUNNING;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> * Slow path lock function spin_lock style: this variant is very
> * careful not to miss any non-lock wakeups.
> *
> @@ -816,7 +846,7 @@ static void fastcall noinline __sched
> rt_spin_lock_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *lock)
> {
> struct rt_mutex_waiter waiter;
> - unsigned long saved_state, state, flags;
> + unsigned long saved_state, flags;
> struct task_struct *orig_owner;
> int missed = 0;
>
> @@ -836,7 +866,9 @@ rt_spin_lock_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *l
> * of the lock sleep/wakeup mechanism. When we get a real
> * wakeup the task->state is TASK_RUNNING and we change
> * saved_state accordingly. If we did not get a real wakeup
> - * then we return with the saved state.
> + * then we return with the saved state. We need to be careful
> + * about original state TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE as well, as we
> + * could miss a wakeup_interruptible()
> */
> saved_state = current->state;
>
> @@ -880,7 +912,8 @@ rt_spin_lock_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *l
>
> if (adaptive_wait(&waiter, orig_owner)) {
> put_task_struct(orig_owner);
> - update_current(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, &saved_state);
> +
> + saved_state = rt_set_current_blocked_state(saved_state);
> /*
> * The xchg() in update_current() is an implicit
> * barrier which we rely upon to ensure current->state
> @@ -896,9 +929,7 @@ rt_spin_lock_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *l
> current->lock_depth = saved_lock_depth;
> }
>
> - state = xchg(¤t->state, saved_state);
> - if (unlikely(state == TASK_RUNNING))
> - current->state = TASK_RUNNING;
> + rt_restore_current_state(saved_state);
>
> /*
> * Extremely rare case, if we got woken up by a non-mutex wakeup,
> @@ -1333,7 +1364,7 @@ rt_read_slowlock(struct rw_mutex *rwm, i
> struct rt_mutex_waiter waiter;
> struct rt_mutex *mutex = &rwm->mutex;
> int saved_lock_depth = -1;
> - unsigned long saved_state = -1, state, flags;
> + unsigned long saved_state, flags;
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&mutex->wait_lock, flags);
> init_rw_lists(rwm);
> @@ -1357,13 +1388,13 @@ rt_read_slowlock(struct rw_mutex *rwm, i
> */
> if (unlikely(current->lock_depth >= 0))
> saved_lock_depth = rt_release_bkl(mutex, flags);
> - set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> } else {
> /* Spin lock must preserve BKL */
> - saved_state = xchg(¤t->state, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> saved_lock_depth = current->lock_depth;
> }
>
> + saved_state = rt_set_current_blocked_state(current->state);
> +
> for (;;) {
> unsigned long saved_flags;
>
> @@ -1398,23 +1429,12 @@ rt_read_slowlock(struct rw_mutex *rwm, i
> spin_lock_irqsave(&mutex->wait_lock, flags);
>
> current->flags |= saved_flags;
> - if (mtx)
> - set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> - else {
> + if (!mtx)
> current->lock_depth = saved_lock_depth;
> - state = xchg(¤t->state, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> - if (unlikely(state == TASK_RUNNING))
> - saved_state = TASK_RUNNING;
> - }
> + saved_state = rt_set_current_blocked_state(saved_state);
> }
>
> - if (mtx)
> - set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> - else {
> - state = xchg(¤t->state, saved_state);
> - if (unlikely(state == TASK_RUNNING))
> - current->state = TASK_RUNNING;
> - }
> + rt_restore_current_state(saved_state);
This is a bug. A mutex always leaves in the TASK_RUNNING state.
>
> if (unlikely(waiter.task))
> remove_waiter(mutex, &waiter, flags);
> @@ -1490,7 +1510,7 @@ rt_write_slowlock(struct rw_mutex *rwm,
> struct rt_mutex *mutex = &rwm->mutex;
> struct rt_mutex_waiter waiter;
> int saved_lock_depth = -1;
> - unsigned long flags, saved_state = -1, state;
> + unsigned long flags, saved_state;
>
> debug_rt_mutex_init_waiter(&waiter);
> waiter.task = NULL;
> @@ -1514,13 +1534,13 @@ rt_write_slowlock(struct rw_mutex *rwm,
> */
> if (unlikely(current->lock_depth >= 0))
> saved_lock_depth = rt_release_bkl(mutex, flags);
> - set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> } else {
> /* Spin locks must preserve the BKL */
> saved_lock_depth = current->lock_depth;
> - saved_state = xchg(¤t->state, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> }
>
> + saved_state = rt_set_current_blocked_state(current->state);
> +
> for (;;) {
> unsigned long saved_flags;
>
> @@ -1555,24 +1575,14 @@ rt_write_slowlock(struct rw_mutex *rwm,
> spin_lock_irqsave(&mutex->wait_lock, flags);
>
> current->flags |= saved_flags;
> - if (mtx)
> - set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> - else {
> + if (!mtx)
> current->lock_depth = saved_lock_depth;
> - state = xchg(¤t->state, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> - if (unlikely(state == TASK_RUNNING))
> - saved_state = TASK_RUNNING;
> - }
> - }
>
> - if (mtx)
> - set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> - else {
> - state = xchg(¤t->state, saved_state);
> - if (unlikely(state == TASK_RUNNING))
> - current->state = TASK_RUNNING;
> + saved_state = rt_set_current_blocked_state(saved_state);
> }
>
> + rt_restore_current_state(saved_state);
> +
Here too.
> if (unlikely(waiter.task))
> remove_waiter(mutex, &waiter, flags);
>
What about having the locking spinlocks and mutexes be almost identical.
Like the rwlocks are (rwlocks and rwsems share the same code). We can use
the RT_MUTEX_RUNNING trick for both. The only difference is that a mutex
will always leave in the TASK_RUNNING state.
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists