From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4 V2] futex: convert hash_bucket locks to raw_spinlock_t
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 20:34:35 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1278722075.1537.174.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C37A945.2000606@us.ibm.com>
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 15:57 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> This version pulls in the bits mistakenly left in 3/4.
>
>
> >From 9f8b4faac79518f98131464c2d21a1c64fb841d2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com>
> Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 16:44:47 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH 4/4 V2] futex: convert hash_bucket locks to raw_spinlock_t
>
> The requeue_pi mechanism introduced proxy locking of the rtmutex. This creates
> a scenario where a task can wake-up, not knowing it has been enqueued on an
> rtmutex. In order to detect this, the task would have to be able to take either
> task->pi_blocked_on->lock->wait_lock and/or the hb->lock. Unfortunately,
> without already holding one of these, the pi_blocked_on variable can change
> from NULL to valid or from valid to NULL. Therefor, the task cannot be allowed
> to take a sleeping lock after wakeup or it could end up trying to block on two
> locks, the second overwriting a valid pi_blocked_on value. This obviously
> breaks the pi mechanism.
>
> This patch increases latency, while running the ltp pthread_cond_many test
> which Michal reported the bug with, I see double digit hrtimer latencies
> (typically only on the first run after boo):
>
> kernel: hrtimer: interrupt took 75911 ns
>
> This might be addressed by changing the various loops in the futex code to be
> incremental, probably at an additional throughput hit. The private hash_bucket
> lists discussed in the past could reduce hb->lock contention in some scenarios.
> It should be noted that pthread_cond_many is a rather pathological case.
>
> This also introduces problems for plists which want a spinlock_t rather
> than a raw_spinlock_t. Any thoughts on how to address this?
>
> Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
> Cc: John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
-- Steve
> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
> ---
> kernel/futex.c | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
> 1 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-07-10 0:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-07-09 22:32 [PATCH 0/4][RT] futex: fix tasks blocking on two rt_mutex locks Darren Hart
2010-07-09 22:32 ` [PATCH 1/4] rtmutex: avoid null derefence in WARN_ON Darren Hart
2010-07-10 0:29 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-07-10 14:42 ` Darren Hart
2010-07-09 22:32 ` [PATCH 2/4] rtmutex: add BUG_ON if a task attempts to block on two locks Darren Hart
2010-07-10 0:30 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-07-10 17:30 ` [PATCH 2/4 V2] " Darren Hart
2010-07-09 22:32 ` [PATCH 3/4] futex: free_pi_state outside of hb->lock sections Darren Hart
2010-07-09 22:55 ` [PATCH 3/4 V2] " Darren Hart
2010-07-10 0:32 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-07-10 14:41 ` Darren Hart
2010-07-12 10:35 ` [PATCH 3/4] " Thomas Gleixner
2010-07-12 10:46 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-07-09 22:33 ` [PATCH 4/4] futex: convert hash_bucket locks to raw_spinlock_t Darren Hart
2010-07-09 22:57 ` [PATCH 4/4 V2] " Darren Hart
2010-07-10 0:34 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2010-07-10 19:41 ` [PATCH 4/4] " Mike Galbraith
2010-07-11 13:33 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-07-11 15:10 ` Darren Hart
2010-07-12 11:45 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-07-12 12:12 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-07-12 19:10 ` Darren Hart
2010-07-12 20:40 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-07-12 20:43 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-07-13 3:09 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-07-13 7:12 ` Darren Hart
2010-07-12 13:05 ` Thomas Gleixner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1278722075.1537.174.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=jkacur@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®