linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/2] rtmutex: Detect changes in the pi lock chain

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140606102515.4e2c9574@gandalf.local.home>
Date:	Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:25:15 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Brad Mouring <bmouring@...com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] rtmutex: Detect changes in the pi lock chain

On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 15:28:33 -0000
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
 
> @@ -536,8 +569,9 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struc
>  {
>  	struct task_struct *owner = rt_mutex_owner(lock);
>  	struct rt_mutex_waiter *top_waiter = waiter;
> +	struct rt_mutex *next_lock = NULL;
>  	unsigned long flags;
> -	int chain_walk = 0, res;
> +	int chain_walk, res;
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Early deadlock detection. We really don't want the task to
> @@ -569,19 +603,21 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struc
>  	if (!owner)
>  		return 0;
>  
> +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&owner->pi_lock, flags);
>  	if (waiter == rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)) {
> -		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&owner->pi_lock, flags);
>  		rt_mutex_dequeue_pi(owner, top_waiter);
>  		rt_mutex_enqueue_pi(owner, waiter);
>  
>  		__rt_mutex_adjust_prio(owner);
>  		if (owner->pi_blocked_on)
>  			chain_walk = 1;
> -		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&owner->pi_lock, flags);
> -	}
> -	else if (debug_rt_mutex_detect_deadlock(waiter, detect_deadlock))
> +	} else if (debug_rt_mutex_detect_deadlock(waiter, detect_deadlock)) {
>  		chain_walk = 1;
> +	}
> +	if (owner->pi_blocked_on)
> +		next_lock = owner->pi_blocked_on->lock;
>  
> +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&owner->pi_lock, flags);
>  	if (!chain_walk)
>  		return 0;

Here's another optimization:

	/* If the owner is not blocked, no need to walk the chain */
	if (!chain_walk || !next_lock)
		return 0;



-- 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/