Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: rt_mutex_timed_lock() vs hrtimer_wakeup() race ? | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Date | Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:47:36 -0400 |
| |
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 04:12 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 07/30, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2006-07-30 at 08:36 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > > Another question, task_blocks_on_rt_mutex() does get_task_struct() and checks > > > owner->pi_blocked_on != NULL under owner->pi_lock. Why ? RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS > > > bit is set, we are holding ->wait_lock, so the 'owner' can't go away until > > > we drop ->wait_lock. > > > > That's probably true that the owner can't disappear before we let go of > > the wait_lock, since the owner should not be disappearing while holding > > locks. But you are missing the point to why we are grabbing the > > pi_lock. We are preventing a race that can have us do unneeded work > > (see below). > > Yes, I see. But ... > > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-2.6.18-rc2.orig/kernel/rtmutex.c 2006-07-30 18:04:12.000000000 -0400 > > +++ linux-2.6.18-rc2/kernel/rtmutex.c 2006-07-30 18:07:08.000000000 -0400 > > @@ -433,25 +433,26 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struc > > ... > > else if (debug_rt_mutex_detect_deadlock(waiter, detect_deadlock)) { > > spin_lock_irqsave(&owner->pi_lock, flags); > > - if (owner->pi_blocked_on) { > > + if (owner->pi_blocked_on) > > boost = 1; > > - /* gets dropped in rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain()! */ > > - get_task_struct(owner); > > - } > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&owner->pi_lock, flags); > > In that case ->pi_lock can't buy anything. With or without ->pi_lock this > check is equally racy, so spin_lock() only adds unneeded work?
crap! I just did a blind change there. The first one does matter, but this is for debugging. Hmm actually I would just remove the owner blocked check all together and do the boost = 1 to force the chain walk. It's for debugging anyway.
So that probably could just look something like this:
else if (debug_rt_mutex_detect_deadlock(waiter, detect_deadlock)) boost = 1;
the "boost" here is a misnomer. It probably would be better to call it "walk" or "chain_walk".
-- Steve
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |