mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, juri.lelli@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
	xlpang@redhat.com, bigeasy@linutronix.de,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
	jdesfossez@efficios.com, bristot@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/4] futex: Rewrite FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 19:58:07 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161124185807.GI3092@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1611241849160.3434@nanos>

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 06:56:53PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > I'm stumped on REQUEUE_PI.. this relies on attach_to_pi_owner() and
> 
> You mean LOCK_PI, right? 
> 
> > fixup_owner() being in the same function. But this is not the case for
> > requeue. WAIT_REQUEUE has the fixup, as its return path finds it has
> > acquired the outer pi-futex (uaddr2), but the lookup_pi_state() stuff is
> > done by CMP_REQUEUE, which does the actual transfer of the waiters from
> > inner futex (uaddr1) to outer futex (uaddr2).
> 
> Correct. WAIT_REQUEUE puts the futex on the inner (uaddr1) and then gets
> moved to the outer. From there it's the same thing as LOCK_PI.
> 
> > Maybe I can restructure things a bit, I think CMP_REQUEUE would also
> > know who actually acquired the outer-futex, but I have to think more on
> > this and the brain is pretty fried...
> 
> That is irrelevant at requeue time and the owner can change up to the point
> where the waiter is really woken by a UNLOCK_PI.

OK, so clearly I'm confused. So let me try again.

LOCK_PI, does in one function: lookup_pi_state, and fixup_owner. If
fixup_owner fails with -EAGAIN, we can redo the pi_state lookup.

The requeue stuff, otoh, has one each. REQUEUE_WAIT has fixup_owner(),
CMP_REQUEUE has lookup_pi_state. Therefore, fixup_owner failing with
-EAGAIN leaves us dead in the water. There's nothing to go back to to
retry.

So far, so 'good', right?

Now, as far as I understand this requeue stuff, we have 2 futexes, an
inner futex and an outer futex. The inner futex is always 'locked' and
serves as a collection pool for waiting threads.

The requeue crap picks one (or more) waiters from the inner futex and
sticks them on the outer futex, which gives them a chance to run.

So WAIT_REQUEUE blocks on the inner futex, but knows that if it ever
gets woken, it will be on the outer futex, and hence needs to
fixup_owner if the futex and rt_mutex state got out of sync.

CMP_REQUEUEUEUE picks the one (or more) waiters of the inner futex and
sticks them on the outer futex.

So far, so 'good' ?

The thing I'm not entire sure on is what happens with the outer futex,
do we first LOCK_PI it before doing CMP_REQUEUE, giving us waiters, and
then UNLOCK_PI to let them rip? Or do we just CMP_REQUEUE and then let
whoever wins finish with UNLOCK_PI?


In any case, I don't think it matters much, either way we can race
betwen the 'last' UNLOCK_PI and getting rt_mutex waiters and then hit
the &init_task funny state, such that WAIT_REQUEUE waking hits EAGAIN
and we're 'stuck'.

Now, if we always CMP_REQUEUE to a locked outer futex, then we cannot
know, at CMP_REQUEUE time, who will win and cannot fix up.

The only solution I've come up with so far involves that
rt_mutex_proxy_swizzle() muck which you didn't really fancy much.

  reply	other threads:[~2016-11-24 18:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-10-03  9:12 [RFC][PATCH 0/4] FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI wobbles Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-03  9:12 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/4] futex: Cleanup variable names for futex_top_waiter() Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-03 14:15   ` Steven Rostedt
2016-10-05  3:58   ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-10-03  9:12 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/4] futex: Use smp_store_release() in mark_wake_futex() Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-03 14:19   ` Steven Rostedt
2016-10-05  3:57   ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-10-05  6:20     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-03  9:12 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/4] futex: Remove rt_mutex_deadlock_account_*() Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-03  9:34   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-03 14:25   ` Steven Rostedt
2016-10-05  1:08   ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-10-05  7:29   ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2016-10-03  9:12 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/4] futex: Rewrite FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-03 15:36   ` Steven Rostedt
2016-10-03 15:44     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-03 15:45     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-03 16:23       ` Steven Rostedt
2016-10-05  7:41   ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2016-10-05  8:09     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-05  8:21       ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2016-10-05  8:32         ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-06 10:29   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-07 11:21   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-08 15:53     ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-10-08 16:55       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-08 17:06         ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-10-10 10:17         ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-10-10 11:40           ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-21 12:27           ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-27 20:36             ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-11-23 19:20               ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-11-24 16:52                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-11-24 17:56                   ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-11-24 18:58                     ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2016-11-25  9:23                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-11-25 10:03                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-11-25 19:13                           ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-11-25 14:09               ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-08 18:22     ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-10-09 11:17     ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-10-10 14:06       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-05  1:02 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/4] FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI wobbles Davidlohr Bueso
2016-10-05  6:20   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-05  7:26     ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2016-10-05 16:04     ` Davidlohr Bueso

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=20161124185807.GI3092@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=bristot@redhat.com \
    --cc=jdesfossez@efficios.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --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