[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87sfzq2q0p.ffs@tglx>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2021 23:10:30 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Subject: Re: [patch 58/63] futex: Prevent requeue_pi() lock nesting issue on RT
On Tue, Aug 03 2021 at 12:28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 02:56:09PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> static inline void futex_requeue_pi_complete(struct futex_q *q, int locked)
>> {
>> + int old, new;
>>
>> + old = atomic_read_acquire(&q->requeue_state);
>> + do {
>
> if (old == Q_REQUEUE_PI_IGNORE)
> return;
>
>> if (locked >= 0) {
>
> WARN_ON_ONCE(old != Q_REQUEUE_PI_IN_PROGRESS &&
> old != Q_REQUEUE_PI_WAIT)
>
>> /* Requeue succeeded. Set DONE or LOCKED */
>> new = Q_REQUEUE_PI_DONE + locked;
>> + } else if (old == Q_REQUEUE_PI_IN_PROGRESS) {
>> /* Deadlock, no early wakeup interleave */
>> new = Q_REQUEUE_PI_NONE;
>> } else {
>
> WARN_ON_ONCE(old != Q_REQUEUE_PI_WAIT);
>
>
> I think...
Yes, it's matching the valid transition table.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists