mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: xlpang@redhat.com
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/deadline/rtmutex: Fix a PI crash for deadline tasks
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 15:29:35 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160409132935.GU3448@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <57087633.3020700@redhat.com>

On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 11:25:39AM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:

> > In any case, I just realized we do not in fact provide this guarantee
> > (of pointing to a blocked task) that needs a bit more work.
> 
> Current patch calls rt_mutex_adjust_prio() before wake_up_q() the
> wakee, at that moment the wakee has been removed by
> rt_mutex_slowunlock()->mark_wakeup_next_waiter(), from current's
> pi_waiters, rt_mutex_adjust_prio() won't see this wakee, so I think
> this should not be problem.

No, any wakeup after mark_wakeup_next_waiter() will make the task run.
And since we must always consider spurious wakeups, we cannot rely on us
(eg. our wake_up_q call) being the one and only.

Therefore it is possible and the only thing that stands between us and
doom is the fact that the wake_q stuff holds a task reference.

But we cannot guarantee that the task we have a pointer to is in fact
blocked.

  reply	other threads:[~2016-04-09 13:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-04-01 11:00 Xunlei Pang
2016-04-01 11:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-01 12:23   ` Xunlei Pang
2016-04-01 13:12     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-01 13:34       ` Xunlei Pang
2016-04-01 21:51         ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-02 10:19           ` Xunlei Pang
2016-04-05  8:38           ` Xunlei Pang
2016-04-05  9:19             ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-05  9:29               ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-05 10:48                 ` Xunlei Pang
2016-04-05 11:32                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-08 16:25                 ` Steven Rostedt
2016-04-08 17:38                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-08 18:50                     ` Steven Rostedt
2016-04-08 18:59                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-08 19:15                         ` Steven Rostedt
2016-04-08 19:28                           ` Steven Rostedt
2016-04-09  3:27                             ` Xunlei Pang
2016-04-09  3:25                         ` Xunlei Pang
2016-04-09 13:29                           ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2016-04-10  8:22                             ` Xunlei Pang
2016-04-12  3:08                               ` Xunlei Pang
2016-04-12 15:51                                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-13  2:13                                   ` Xunlei Pang

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=20160409132935.GU3448@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=juri.lelli@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=xlpang@redhat.com \
    /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

Powered by JetHome