[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6530f135-e8ac-bb6c-4715-1ea8f76cf4c4@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 14:06:59 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, john.p.donnelly@...cle.com,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/rwsem: Prevent non-first waiter from spinning in
down_write() slowpath
On 9/29/22 14:04, Waiman Long wrote:
> A non-first waiter can potentially spin in the for loop of
> rwsem_down_write_slowpath() without sleeping but fail to acquire the
> lock even if the rwsem is free if the following sequence happens:
>
> Non-first waiter First waiter Lock holder
> ---------------- ------------ -----------
> Acquire wait_lock
> rwsem_try_write_lock():
> Set handoff bit if RT or
> wait too long
> Set waiter->handoff_set
> Release wait_lock
> Acquire wait_lock
> Inherit waiter->handoff_set
> Release wait_lock
> Clear owner
> Release lock
> if (waiter.handoff_set) {
> rwsem_spin_on_owner(();
> if (OWNER_NULL)
> goto trylock_again;
> }
> trylock_again:
> Acquire wait_lock
> rwsem_try_write_lock():
> if (first->handoff_set && (waiter != first))
> return false;
> Release wait_lock
>
> It is especially problematic if the non-first waiter is an RT task and
> it is running on the same CPU as the first waiter as this can lead to
> live lock.
>
> Fixes: d257cc8cb8d5 ("locking/rwsem: Make handoff bit handling more consistent")
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
> ---
> kernel/locking/rwsem.c | 13 ++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Mukesh, can you test if this patch can fix the RT task lockup problem?
Thanks,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists