[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210803100713.GB8057@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 12:07:13 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
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 Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 03:51:05PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> @@ -219,6 +221,10 @@ struct futex_q {
> struct rt_mutex_waiter *rt_waiter;
> union futex_key *requeue_pi_key;
> u32 bitset;
> + atomic_t requeue_state;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
> + struct rcuwait requeue_wait;
> +#endif
> } __randomize_layout;
>
> static const struct futex_q futex_q_init = {
Do we want to explicitly initialize requeue_state in futex_q_init? I was
looking where we reset the state machine and eventually figured it out,
but I'm thinking something more explicit might help avoid this for the
next time.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists