lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [May]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 1/3] rtmutex: Add missing deadlock check
On Tue, 13 May 2014, Lai Jiangshan wrote:

> Hi, Thomas,
>
> I think this patch is just a workaround, it is not the proper fix.
> you need a updated deadlock-check mechanism:
>
> - (old) skip the check when top_waiter != task_top_pi_waiter(task)
> + (new) skip the check when top_waiter->prio > task->prio

I don't think that helps.

> > /*
> > + * Deadlock check for the following scenario:
> > + *
> > + * T holds lock L and has waiters
> > + * T locks L again, but does not end up as it's own top waiter
>
> ABBA problem (TA TB TC TD are of the same priority)
>
> TA holds lock LA, and try to lock LB which TC already has waited on
> TB holds lock LB, and try to lock LA which TD already has waited on
>
> I think this check can't detect it IIUC.

Right it doesn't.

> /*
> * 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 the issue here is, that we break out of the chain walk even if
deadlock detection is enabled.

The break out is correct for the boost case w/o deadlock detection, so
we won't do any pointless work.

For the deadlock detection case, we need to continue. But we should
store, that we are not the top_waiter so we can avoid the requeue
business when walking the chain.

Thanks,

tglx






\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-05-14 15:41    [W:0.191 / U:0.356 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site