[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87lf5i2phe.ffs@tglx>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2021 23:22:05 +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 13:20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 03:51:05PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> + /*
>> + * We were woken prior to requeue by a timeout or a signal.
>> + * Unqueue the futex_q and determine which it was.
>> + */
>> + plist_del(&q->list, &hb->chain);
>> + hb_waiters_dec(hb);
>> +
>> + /* Handle spurious wakeups gracefully */
>> + ret = -EWOULDBLOCK;
>> + if (timeout && !timeout->task)
>> + ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
>> + else if (signal_pending(current))
>> + ret = -ERESTARTNOINTR;
>> return ret;
>> }
>
> AFAICT this change is a separate cleanup, possible because the only
> callsite already does that match_futex() test before calling this.
No. It's possible because the state machine guarantees that. The
match_futex() in the calling function is unrelated.
> I think it might be worth splitting out, just to reduce the complexity
> of this patch.
Yes, I did by moving the match_futex() test to the call site as a
preparatory change for this one.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists