[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1609291034390.4825@nanos>
Date:   Thu, 29 Sep 2016 10:43:54 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, mingo@...nel.org,
        juri.lelli@....com, xlpang@...hat.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        jdesfossez@...icios.com, bristot@...hat.com,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 1/9] rtmutex: Deboost before waking up the top
 waiter
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:37:27AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:35:03 -0400
> > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Especially now that the code after the spin_unlock(&hb->lock) is now a
> > > critical section (preemption is disable). There's nothing obvious in
> > > futex.c that says it is.
> > 
> > Not to mention, this looks like it will break PREEMPT_RT as wake_up_q()
> > calls sleepable spin locks.
> 
> What locks would that be?
None :)
It still breaks RT in the futex case due to:
   deboost = rt_mutex_futex_unlock();
   spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
	....
	migrate_enable();
	    if (in_atomic())
		return;
So the migrate_disable() which was emitted by spin_lock(&hb->lock) will not
be cleaned up and we leak the migrate disable count. We can work around
that, but it's not pretty.
As a related note, Sebastian decoded another possible priority inversion
issue in the futex mess.
      T1 holds futex
      T2 blocks on futex and boosts T1
      T1 unlocks futex and holds hb->lock
      T1 unlocks rt mutex, so T1 has no more pi waiters
      T3 blocks on hb->lock and adds itself to the pi waiters list of T1
      T1 unlocks hb->lock and deboosts itself
      T4 preempts T1 so the wakeup of T2 gets delayed .....
We tried to fix it with a preempt_disable() and that's where we ran into
that migrate_enable() hickup. We have a non deboosting variant for
spin_unlock() for now, but we'll have to revisit that anyway ...
Thanks,
	tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
 
