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: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 10:23:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161125092326.GG3174@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161124185807.GI3092@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 07:58:07PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.
OTOH, if we always first LOCK_PI before doing CMP_REQUEUE, I don't think
we can hit the funny state, LOCK_PI will have fixed it up for us.
So the question is, do we mandate LOCK_PI before CMP_REQUEUE?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-25 9:24 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
2016-11-25 9:23 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
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=20161125092326.GG3174@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