[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1703071424250.3584@nanos>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 14:26:37 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: mingo@...nel.org, juri.lelli@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
xlpang@...hat.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
jdesfossez@...icios.com, bristot@...hat.com, dvhart@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v5 09/14] futex: Rework inconsistent rt_mutex/futex_q
state
On Sat, 4 Mar 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> @@ -1402,12 +1402,18 @@ static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uad
> new_owner = rt_mutex_next_owner(&pi_state->pi_mutex);
>
> /*
> - * It is possible that the next waiter (the one that brought
> - * top_waiter owner to the kernel) timed out and is no longer
> - * waiting on the lock.
> + * When we interleave with futex_lock_pi() where it does
> + * rt_mutex_timed_futex_lock(), we might observe @this futex_q waiter,
> + * but the rt_mutex's wait_list can be empty (either still, or again,
> + * depending on which side we land).
> + *
> + * When this happens, give up our locks and try again, giving the
> + * futex_lock_pi() instance time to complete and unqueue_me().
time to complete, either by waiting on the rtmutex or removing itself
from the futex queue.
Or something like that.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists