[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711210931460.1782@nanos>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 09:37:37 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
cc: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH PREEMPT RT] rt-mutex: fix deadlock in device mapper
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-11-20 at 16:33 -0500, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> >
> > Is there some specific scenario where you need to call
> > blk_schedule_flush_plug from rt_spin_lock_fastlock?
>
> Excellent question. What's the difference between not getting IO
> started because you meet a mutex with an rt_mutex under the hood, and
> not getting IO started because you meet a spinlock with an rt_mutex
> under the hood? If just doing the mutex side puts this thing back to
> sleep, I'm happy.
Think about it from the mainline POV.
The spinlock cannot ever go to schedule and therefore cannot create a
situation which requires an unplug. The RT substitution of the spinlock
with a rtmutex based sleeping spinlock should not change that at all.
A regular mutex/rwsem etc. can and will unplug when the lock is contended
and the caller blocks. The RT conversion of these locks to rtmutex based
variants creates the problem: Unplug cannot be called when the task has
pi_blocked_on set because the unplug path might content on yet another
lock. So unplugging in the slow path before setting pi_blocked_on is the
right thing to do.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists