linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/8] sched/deadline/rtmutex: Dont miss the dl_runtime/dl

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: <20160615123007.728b088c@grimm.local.home>
Date:	Wed, 15 Jun 2016 12:30:07 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, juri.lelli@....com,
	xlpang@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, jdesfossez@...icios.com,
	bristot@...hat.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/8] sched/deadline/rtmutex: Dont miss the
 dl_runtime/dl_period update

On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 21:56:38 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> From: Xunlei Pang <xlpang@...hat.com>
> 
> Currently dl tasks will actually return at the very beginning
> of rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain() in !detect_deadlock cases:
> 
>     if (waiter->prio == task->prio) {
>         if (!detect_deadlock)
>             goto out_unlock_pi; // out here
>         else
>             requeue = false;
>     }
> 
> As the deadline value of blocked deadline tasks(waiters) without
> changing their sched_class(thus prio doesn't change) never changes,
> this seems reasonable, but it actually misses the chance of updating
> rt_mutex_waiter's "dl_runtime(period)_copy" if a waiter updates its
> deadline parameters(dl_runtime, dl_period) or boosted waiter changes
> to !deadline class.
> 
> Thus, force deadline task not out by adding the !dl_prio() condition.
> 
> [peterz: I should introduce more task state comparators like
> rt_mutex_waiter_less, all PI prio comparisons already have this DL
> exception, except this one]
> 
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Xunlei Pang <xlpang@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1460633827-345-7-git-send-email-xlpang@redhat.com
> ---
>  kernel/locking/rtmutex.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> --- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> @@ -488,7 +488,7 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
>  	 * enabled we continue, but stop the requeueing in the chain
>  	 * walk.
>  	 */
> -	if (waiter->prio == task->prio) {
> +	if (waiter->prio == task->prio && !dl_task(task)) {

Isn't task the owner of the lock? What happens if the waiter is a
deadline task?

-- Steve

>  		if (!detect_deadlock)
>  			goto out_unlock_pi;
>  		else
>