linux-kernel - Re: [patch V3 7/7] rtmutex: Avoid pointless requeueing in the deadlock detection chain walk

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: <20140609212033.1cff0999@gandalf.local.home>
Date:	Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:20:33 -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>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>, Brad Mouring <bmouring@...com>
Subject: Re: [patch V3 7/7] rtmutex: Avoid pointless requeueing in the
 deadlock detection chain walk

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 20:28:10 -0000
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:

> In case the dead lock detector is enabled we follow the lock chain to
> the end in rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain, even if we could stop earlier
> due to the priority/waiter constellation.
> 
> But once we are not longer the top priority waiter in a certain step
> or the task holding the lock has already the same priority then there
> is no point in dequeing and enqueing along the lock chain as there is
> no change at all.
> 
> So stop the requeueing at this point.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> ---
>  kernel/locking/rtmutex.c |   61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: tip/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> ===================================================================
> --- tip.orig/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> +++ tip/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> @@ -359,6 +359,7 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
>  	struct rt_mutex *lock;
>  	bool detect_deadlock;
>  	unsigned long flags;
> +	bool requeue = true;
>  
>  	detect_deadlock = rt_mutex_cond_detect_deadlock(orig_waiter, chwalk);
>  
> @@ -436,18 +437,31 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
>  			goto out_unlock_pi;
>  		/*
>  		 * If deadlock detection is off, we stop here if we
> -		 * are not the top pi waiter of the task.
> +		 * are not the top pi waiter of the task. If deadlock
> +		 * detection is enabled we continue, but stop the
> +		 * requeueing in the chain walk.
>  		 */
> -		if (!detect_deadlock && top_waiter != task_top_pi_waiter(task))
> -			goto out_unlock_pi;
> +		if (top_waiter != task_top_pi_waiter(task)) {
> +			if (!detect_deadlock)
> +				goto out_unlock_pi;
> +			else
> +				requeue = false;
> +		}
>  	}
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * When deadlock detection is off then we check, if further
> -	 * priority adjustment is necessary.
> +	 * If the waiter priority is the same as the task priority
> +	 * then there is no further priority adjustment necessary.  If
> +	 * deadlock detection is off, we stop the chain walk. If its
> +	 * enabled we continue, but stop the requeueing in the chain
> +	 * walk.
>  	 */
> -	if (!detect_deadlock && waiter->prio == task->prio)
> -		goto out_unlock_pi;
> +	if (waiter->prio == task->prio) {
> +		if (!detect_deadlock)
> +			goto out_unlock_pi;
> +		else
> +			requeue = false;
> +	}
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * We need to trylock here as we are holding task->pi_lock,
> @@ -475,6 +489,39 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
>  	}
>  
>  	/*
> +	 * If we just follow the lock chain for deadlock detection, no
> +	 * need to do all the requeue operations. We avoid a truckload

s/We/To/


> +	 * of conditinals around the various places below and just do

s/ and/, /

> +	 * the minimum chain walk checks here.
> +	 */
> +	if (!requeue) {
> +		/* Release the task */
> +		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
> +		put_task_struct(task);
> +
> +		/* If there is no owner of the lock, end of chain. */
> +		if (!rt_mutex_owner(lock)) {
> +			raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
> +			return 0;
> +		}
> +
> +		/* Grab the next task, i.e. owner of @lock */
> +		task = rt_mutex_owner(lock);
> +		get_task_struct(task);
> +		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&task->pi_lock, flags);
> +
> +		/* Store whether owner is blocked itself and drop locks */
> +		next_lock = task_blocked_on(task);
> +		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
> +		raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
> +
> +		/* If owner is not blocked, end of chain. */
> +		if (!next_lock)
> +			goto out_put_task;

On the loop back around, have something like:

	if (top_waiter) {
		if (!task_has_pi_waiters(task))
			goto out_unlock_pi;

		if (!requeue &&
		    top_waiter != task_top_pi_waiter(task)) {
			if (!detect_deadlock)
				goto out_unlock_pi;
			else
				requeue = false;
		}
	}

??


> +		goto again;
> +	}
> +
> +	/*
>  	 * Store the current top waiter before doing the requeue
>  	 * operation on @lock. We need it for the boost/deboost
>  	 * decision below.
> 

--
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/