The deadlock logic is only required for futexes.
Remove the extra arguments for the public functions and also for the
futex specific ones which get always called with deadlock detection
enabled.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Exit right away, when the removed waiter was not the top priority
waiter on the lock. Get rid of the extra indent level.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Reviewed-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Add commentry to document the chain walk and the protection mechanisms
and their scope.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Add a separate local variable for the boost/deboost logic to make the
code more readable. Add comments where appropriate.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
There is no point to keep the task ref across the check for lock
owner. Drop the ref before that, so the protection context is clear.
Found while documenting the chain walk.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Reviewed-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
The current implementation of try_to_take_rtmutex() is correct, but
requires more than a single brain twist to understand the clever
encoded conditionals.
Untangle it and document the cases proper.
Looks less efficient at the first glance, but actually reduces the
binary code size on x8664 by 80 bytes.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Oleg noticed that rtmutex_slowtrylock() has a pointless check for
rt_mutex_owner(lock) != current.
To avoid calling try_to_take_rtmutex() we really want to check whether
the lock has an owner at all or whether the trylock failed because the
owner is NULL, but the RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS bit is set. This covers
the lock is owned by caller situation as well.
We can actually do this check lockless. trylock is taking a chance
whether we take lock->wait_lock to do the check or not.
Add comments to the function while at it.
Reported-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Reviewed-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
When the rtmutex fast path is enabled the slow unlock function can
create the following situation:
spin_lock(foo->m->wait_lock);
foo->m->owner = NULL;
rt_mutex_lock(foo->m); <-- fast path
free = atomic_dec_and_test(foo->refcnt);
rt_mutex_unlock(foo->m); <-- fast path
if (free)
kfree(foo);
spin_unlock(foo->m->wait_lock); <--- Use after free.
Plug the race by changing the slow unlock to the following scheme:
while (!rt_mutex_has_waiters(m)) {
/* Clear the waiters bit in m->owner */
clear_rt_mutex_waiters(m);
owner = rt_mutex_owner(m);
spin_unlock(m->wait_lock);
if (cmpxchg(m->owner, owner, 0) == owner)
return;
spin_lock(m->wait_lock);
}
So in case of a new waiter incoming while the owner tries the slow
path unlock we have two situations:
unlock(wait_lock);
lock(wait_lock);
cmpxchg(p, owner, 0) == owner
mark_rt_mutex_waiters(lock);
acquire(lock);
Or:
unlock(wait_lock);
lock(wait_lock);
mark_rt_mutex_waiters(lock);
cmpxchg(p, owner, 0) != owner
enqueue_waiter();
unlock(wait_lock);
lock(wait_lock);
wakeup_next waiter();
unlock(wait_lock);
lock(wait_lock);
acquire(lock);
If the fast path is disabled, then the simple
m->owner = NULL;
unlock(m->wait_lock);
is sufficient as all access to m->owner is serialized via
m->wait_lock;
Also document and clarify the wakeup_next_waiter function as suggested
by Oleg Nesterov.
Reported-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140611183852.937945560@linutronix.de
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
When we walk the lock chain, we drop all locks after each step. So the
lock chain can change under us before we reacquire the locks. That's
harmless in principle as we just follow the wrong lock path. But it
can lead to a false positive in the dead lock detection logic:
T0 holds L0
T0 blocks on L1 held by T1
T1 blocks on L2 held by T2
T2 blocks on L3 held by T3
T4 blocks on L4 held by T4
Now we walk the chain
lock T1 -> lock L2 -> adjust L2 -> unlock T1 ->
lock T2 -> adjust T2 -> drop locks
T2 times out and blocks on L0
Now we continue:
lock T2 -> lock L0 -> deadlock detected, but it's not a deadlock at all.
Brad tried to work around that in the deadlock detection logic itself,
but the more I looked at it the less I liked it, because it's crystal
ball magic after the fact.
We actually can detect a chain change very simple:
lock T1 -> lock L2 -> adjust L2 -> unlock T1 -> lock T2 -> adjust T2 ->
next_lock = T2->pi_blocked_on->lock;
drop locks
T2 times out and blocks on L0
Now we continue:
lock T2 ->
if (next_lock != T2->pi_blocked_on->lock)
return;
So if we detect that T2 is now blocked on a different lock we stop the
chain walk. That's also correct in the following scenario:
lock T1 -> lock L2 -> adjust L2 -> unlock T1 -> lock T2 -> adjust T2 ->
next_lock = T2->pi_blocked_on->lock;
drop locks
T3 times out and drops L3
T2 acquires L3 and blocks on L4 now
Now we continue:
lock T2 ->
if (next_lock != T2->pi_blocked_on->lock)
return;
We don't have to follow up the chain at that point, because T2
propagated our priority up to T4 already.
[ Folded a cleanup patch from peterz ]
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reported-by: Brad Mouring <bmouring@ni.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140605152801.930031935@linutronix.de
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Even in the case when deadlock detection is not requested by the
caller, we can detect deadlocks. Right now the code stops the lock
chain walk and keeps the waiter enqueued, even on itself. Silly not to
yell when such a scenario is detected and to keep the waiter enqueued.
Return -EDEADLK unconditionally and handle it at the call sites.
The futex calls return -EDEADLK. The non futex ones dequeue the
waiter, throw a warning and put the task into a schedule loop.
Tagged for stable as it makes the code more robust.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Brad Mouring <bmouring@ni.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140605152801.836501969@linutronix.de
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
The current deadlock detection logic does not work reliably due to the
following early exit path:
/*
* Drop out, when the task has no waiters. Note,
* top_waiter can be NULL, when we are in the deboosting
* mode!
*/
if (top_waiter && (!task_has_pi_waiters(task) ||
top_waiter != task_top_pi_waiter(task)))
goto out_unlock_pi;
So this not only exits when the task has no waiters, it also exits
unconditionally when the current waiter is not the top priority waiter
of the task.
So in a nested locking scenario, it might abort the lock chain walk
and therefor miss a potential deadlock.
Simple fix: Continue the chain walk, when deadlock detection is
enabled.
We also avoid the whole enqueue, if we detect the deadlock right away
(A-A). It's an optimization, but also prevents that another waiter who
comes in after the detection and before the task has undone the damage
observes the situation and detects the deadlock and returns
-EDEADLOCK, which is wrong as the other task is not in a deadlock
situation.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140522031949.725272460@linutronix.de
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
If a PI boosted task policy/priority is modified by a setscheduler()
call we unconditionally dequeue and requeue the task if it is on the
runqueue even if the new priority is lower than the current effective
boosted priority. This can result in undesired reordering of the
priority bucket list.
If the new priority is less or equal than the current effective we
just store the new parameters in the task struct and leave the
scheduler class and the runqueue untouched. This is handled when the
task deboosts itself. Only if the new priority is higher than the
effective boosted priority we apply the change immediately.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
[ Rebase ontop of v3.14-rc1. ]
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: Dario Faggioli <raistlin@linux.it>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1391803122-4425-7-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Some method to deal with rt-mutexes and make sched_dl interact with
the current PI-coded is needed, raising all but trivial issues, that
needs (according to us) to be solved with some restructuring of
the pi-code (i.e., going toward a proxy execution-ish implementation).
This is under development, in the meanwhile, as a temporary solution,
what this commits does is:
- ensure a pi-lock owner with waiters is never throttled down. Instead,
when it runs out of runtime, it immediately gets replenished and it's
deadline is postponed;
- the scheduling parameters (relative deadline and default runtime)
used for that replenishments --during the whole period it holds the
pi-lock-- are the ones of the waiting task with earliest deadline.
Acting this way, we provide some kind of boosting to the lock-owner,
still by using the existing (actually, slightly modified by the previous
commit) pi-architecture.
We would stress the fact that this is only a surely needed, all but
clean solution to the problem. In the end it's only a way to re-start
discussion within the community. So, as always, comments, ideas, rants,
etc.. are welcome! :-)
Signed-off-by: Dario Faggioli <raistlin@linux.it>
Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com>
[ Added !RT_MUTEXES build fix. ]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1383831828-15501-11-git-send-email-juri.lelli@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Turn the pi-chains from plist to rb-tree, in the rt_mutex code,
and provide a proper comparison function for -deadline and
-priority tasks.
This is done mainly because:
- classical prio field of the plist is just an int, which might
not be enough for representing a deadline;
- manipulating such a list would become O(nr_deadline_tasks),
which might be to much, as the number of -deadline task increases.
Therefore, an rb-tree is used, and tasks are queued in it according
to the following logic:
- among two -priority (i.e., SCHED_BATCH/OTHER/RR/FIFO) tasks, the
one with the higher (lower, actually!) prio wins;
- among a -priority and a -deadline task, the latter always wins;
- among two -deadline tasks, the one with the earliest deadline
wins.
Queueing and dequeueing functions are changed accordingly, for both
the list of a task's pi-waiters and the list of tasks blocked on
a pi-lock.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Dario Faggioli <raistlin@linux.it>
Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com>
Signed-off-again-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1383831828-15501-10-git-send-email-juri.lelli@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
