[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230816152231.GD982867@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 17:22:31 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
bsegall@...gle.com, boqun.feng@...il.com, swood@...hat.com,
bristot@...hat.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com, mingo@...hat.com,
jstultz@...gle.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com, mgorman@...e.de,
rostedt@...dmis.org, vschneid@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, longman@...hat.com, will@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] locking/rtmutex: Avoid PI state recursion through
sched_submit_work()
On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 04:58:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> I've ended up with the below, but it is quite horrible.. but let me go
> stare at the futex wreckage before trying to clean things up.
OK, I think the below covers the simple case, now lets see if I can make
sense of futex_wait_requeue_pi()... :/
---
--- a/kernel/futex/pi.c
+++ b/kernel/futex/pi.c
@@ -1002,6 +1002,12 @@ int futex_lock_pi(u32 __user *uaddr, uns
goto no_block;
}
+ /*
+ * Must be done before we enqueue the waiter, here is unfortunately
+ * under the hb lock, but that *should* work.
+ */
+ rt_mutex_pre_schedule();
+
rt_mutex_init_waiter(&rt_waiter);
/*
@@ -1052,6 +1058,10 @@ int futex_lock_pi(u32 __user *uaddr, uns
if (ret && !rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock(&q.pi_state->pi_mutex, &rt_waiter))
ret = 0;
+ /*
+ * Waiter is unqueued.
+ */
+ rt_mutex_post_schedule();
no_block:
/*
* Fixup the pi_state owner and possibly acquire the lock if we
Powered by blists - more mailing lists