mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: 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,
	dvhart@infradead.org, peterz@infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH -v4 08/10] futex: Rework futex_lock_pi() vs rt_mutex_timed_futex_lock()
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 09:36:46 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161213085730.563675201@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161213083638.938898295@infradead.org>

[-- Attachment #1: peterz-futex-pi-unlock-5.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 9647 bytes --]

Currently we must drop hb->lock in order to call
rt_mutex_timed_futex_lock(), such that it can block and wait for lock
acquisition.

The problem with this is that at this point (and after a failed
acquire but before re-acquiring hb->lock) the hb queue and rt_mutex
wait list disagree on who is waiting to acquire the futex. This leads
to a 'funny' state in wake_futex_pi() which we then need to deal with
in fixup_owner().

This inconsistent state would become even more of a problem when we
move rt_mutex_unlock() out from under hb->lock, which we want to do
because of PI inversion issues.

Avoid the funny state by reusing the
rt_mutex_{start,finish}_proxy_lock() primitives that were created for
requeue-pi.

The idea is to enqueue the rt_mutex_waiter on the rt_mutex wait list
before dropping the hb->lock, this is what rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock()
allows.

We must then wait for the lock with hb->lock dropped, _however_ we
must not do remove_waiter() in case the lock acquire fails, this means
we need to split rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock() into two parts: wait and
cleanup.

With this done we can do something along the lines of:

	__queue_me();
	rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock();
	spin_unlock(q.lock_ptr);

	ret = rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock();

	spin_lock(q.lock_ptr);
	if (ret)
		rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock();

And the hb queue and rt_mutex wait lists are always in sync, with the
one except of rt_mutex_futex_unlock(), which removes the new owner
from the rt_mutex wait list which will remain on the hb queue until it
returns from rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock().

This one case is fine, since unlock has no concurrency with itself.
That is, the new owner must finish and return from futex_lock_pi()
before it can do another unlock (through futex_unlock_pi()), at which
point its state is coherent again.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
---
 kernel/futex.c                  |   78 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
 kernel/locking/rtmutex.c        |   47 +++++++++++++-----------
 kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h |   10 +++--
 3 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/futex.c
+++ b/kernel/futex.c
@@ -2088,20 +2088,7 @@ queue_unlock(struct futex_hash_bucket *h
 	hb_waiters_dec(hb);
 }
 
-/**
- * queue_me() - Enqueue the futex_q on the futex_hash_bucket
- * @q:	The futex_q to enqueue
- * @hb:	The destination hash bucket
- *
- * The hb->lock must be held by the caller, and is released here. A call to
- * queue_me() is typically paired with exactly one call to unqueue_me().  The
- * exceptions involve the PI related operations, which may use unqueue_me_pi()
- * or nothing if the unqueue is done as part of the wake process and the unqueue
- * state is implicit in the state of woken task (see futex_wait_requeue_pi() for
- * an example).
- */
-static inline void queue_me(struct futex_q *q, struct futex_hash_bucket *hb)
-	__releases(&hb->lock)
+static inline void __queue_me(struct futex_q *q, struct futex_hash_bucket *hb)
 {
 	int prio;
 
@@ -2118,6 +2105,24 @@ static inline void queue_me(struct futex
 	plist_node_init(&q->list, prio);
 	plist_add(&q->list, &hb->chain);
 	q->task = current;
+}
+
+/**
+ * queue_me() - Enqueue the futex_q on the futex_hash_bucket
+ * @q:	The futex_q to enqueue
+ * @hb:	The destination hash bucket
+ *
+ * The hb->lock must be held by the caller, and is released here. A call to
+ * queue_me() is typically paired with exactly one call to unqueue_me().  The
+ * exceptions involve the PI related operations, which may use unqueue_me_pi()
+ * or nothing if the unqueue is done as part of the wake process and the unqueue
+ * state is implicit in the state of woken task (see futex_wait_requeue_pi() for
+ * an example).
+ */
+static inline void queue_me(struct futex_q *q, struct futex_hash_bucket *hb)
+	__releases(&hb->lock)
+{
+	__queue_me(q, hb);
 	spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
 }
 
@@ -2593,6 +2598,7 @@ static int futex_lock_pi(u32 __user *uad
 			 ktime_t *time, int trylock)
 {
 	struct hrtimer_sleeper timeout, *to = NULL;
+	struct rt_mutex_waiter rt_waiter;
 	struct futex_hash_bucket *hb;
 	struct futex_q q = futex_q_init;
 	int res, ret;
@@ -2645,25 +2651,49 @@ static int futex_lock_pi(u32 __user *uad
 		}
 	}
 
+	WARN_ON(!q.pi_state);
+
 	/*
 	 * Only actually queue now that the atomic ops are done:
 	 */
-	queue_me(&q, hb);
+	__queue_me(&q, hb);
 
-	WARN_ON(!q.pi_state);
-	/*
-	 * Block on the PI mutex:
-	 */
-	if (!trylock) {
-		ret = rt_mutex_timed_futex_lock(&q.pi_state->pi_mutex, to);
-	} else {
+	debug_rt_mutex_init_waiter(&rt_waiter);
+	RB_CLEAR_NODE(&rt_waiter.pi_tree_entry);
+	RB_CLEAR_NODE(&rt_waiter.tree_entry);
+	rt_waiter.task = NULL;
+
+	if (trylock) {
 		ret = rt_mutex_futex_trylock(&q.pi_state->pi_mutex);
 		/* Fixup the trylock return value: */
 		ret = ret ? 0 : -EWOULDBLOCK;
+		goto did_trylock;
 	}
 
+	/*
+	 * We must add ourselves to the rt_mutex waitlist while holding hb->lock
+	 * such that the hb and rt_mutex wait lists match.
+	 */
+	rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(&q.pi_state->pi_mutex, &rt_waiter, current);
+	spin_unlock(q.lock_ptr);
+
+	if (unlikely(to))
+		hrtimer_start_expires(&to->timer, HRTIMER_MODE_ABS);
+
+	ret = rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock(&q.pi_state->pi_mutex, to, &rt_waiter);
+
 	spin_lock(q.lock_ptr);
 	/*
+	 * If we failed to acquire the lock (signal/timeout), we must
+	 * first acquire the hb->lock before removing the lock from the
+	 * rt_mutex waitqueue, such that we can keep the hb and rt_mutex
+	 * wait lists consistent.
+	 */
+	if (ret)
+		rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock(&q.pi_state->pi_mutex, &rt_waiter);
+
+did_trylock:
+	/*
 	 * Fixup the pi_state owner and possibly acquire the lock if we
 	 * haven't already.
 	 */
@@ -3005,10 +3035,12 @@ static int futex_wait_requeue_pi(u32 __u
 		 */
 		WARN_ON(!q.pi_state);
 		pi_mutex = &q.pi_state->pi_mutex;
-		ret = rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock(pi_mutex, to, &rt_waiter);
+		ret = rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock(pi_mutex, to, &rt_waiter);
 		debug_rt_mutex_free_waiter(&rt_waiter);
 
 		spin_lock(q.lock_ptr);
+		if (ret)
+			rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock(pi_mutex, &rt_waiter);
 		/*
 		 * Fixup the pi_state owner and possibly acquire the lock if we
 		 * haven't already.
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -1485,19 +1485,6 @@ int __sched rt_mutex_lock_interruptible(
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rt_mutex_lock_interruptible);
 
 /*
- * Futex variant with full deadlock detection.
- * Futex variants must not use the fast-path, see __rt_mutex_futex_unlock().
- */
-int __sched rt_mutex_timed_futex_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
-			      struct hrtimer_sleeper *timeout)
-{
-	might_sleep();
-
-	return rt_mutex_slowlock(lock, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE,
-				 timeout, RT_MUTEX_FULL_CHAINWALK);
-}
-
-/*
  * Futex variant, must not use fastpath.
  */
 int __sched rt_mutex_futex_trylock(struct rt_mutex *lock)
@@ -1745,21 +1732,23 @@ struct task_struct *rt_mutex_next_owner(
 }
 
 /**
- * rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock() - Complete lock acquisition
+ * rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock() - Wait for lock acquisition
  * @lock:		the rt_mutex we were woken on
  * @to:			the timeout, null if none. hrtimer should already have
  *			been started.
  * @waiter:		the pre-initialized rt_mutex_waiter
  *
- * Complete the lock acquisition started our behalf by another thread.
+ * Wait for the the lock acquisition started on our behalf by
+ * rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(). Upon failure, the caller must call
+ * rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock().
  *
  * Returns:
  *  0 - success
  * <0 - error, one of -EINTR, -ETIMEDOUT
  *
- * Special API call for PI-futex requeue support
+ * Special API call for PI-futex support
  */
-int rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
+int rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
 			       struct hrtimer_sleeper *to,
 			       struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter)
 {
@@ -1772,9 +1761,6 @@ int rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock(struct rt
 	/* sleep on the mutex */
 	ret = __rt_mutex_slowlock(lock, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, to, waiter);
 
-	if (unlikely(ret))
-		remove_waiter(lock, waiter);
-
 	/*
 	 * try_to_take_rt_mutex() sets the waiter bit unconditionally. We might
 	 * have to fix that up.
@@ -1785,3 +1771,24 @@ int rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock(struct rt
 
 	return ret;
 }
+
+/**
+ * rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock() - Cleanup failed lock acquisition
+ * @lock:		the rt_mutex we were woken on
+ * @waiter:		the pre-initialized rt_mutex_waiter
+ *
+ * Clean up the failed lock acquisition as per rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock().
+ *
+ * Special API call for PI-futex support
+ */
+void rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
+				 struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter)
+{
+	raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
+
+	remove_waiter(lock, waiter);
+	fixup_rt_mutex_waiters(lock);
+
+	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
+}
+
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h
@@ -105,11 +105,13 @@ extern void rt_mutex_proxy_unlock(struct
 extern int rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
 				     struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter,
 				     struct task_struct *task);
-extern int rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
-				      struct hrtimer_sleeper *to,
-				      struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter);
 
-extern int rt_mutex_timed_futex_lock(struct rt_mutex *l, struct hrtimer_sleeper *to);
+extern int rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
+			       struct hrtimer_sleeper *to,
+			       struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter);
+extern void rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
+				 struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter);
+
 extern int rt_mutex_futex_trylock(struct rt_mutex *l);
 
 extern void rt_mutex_futex_unlock(struct rt_mutex *lock);

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-12-13  9:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-12-13  8:36 [PATCH -v4 00/10] FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI wobbles Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-13  8:36 ` [PATCH -v4 01/10] futex: Fix potential use-after-free in FUTEX_REQUEUE_PI Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-16 23:58   ` Darren Hart
2016-12-13  8:36 ` [PATCH -v4 02/10] futex: Add missing error handling to FUTEX_REQUEUE_PI Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-17  0:06   ` Darren Hart
2016-12-17 13:54     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-18 23:31       ` Darren Hart
2016-12-13  8:36 ` [PATCH -v4 03/10] futex: Cleanup variable names for futex_top_waiter() Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-17  0:13   ` Darren Hart
2017-02-22 14:07     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-13  8:36 ` [PATCH -v4 04/10] futex: Use smp_store_release() in mark_wake_futex() Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-17  0:50   ` Darren Hart
2017-02-22 14:03     ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-17  0:35       ` Darren Hart
2016-12-13  8:36 ` [PATCH -v4 05/10] futex: Remove rt_mutex_deadlock_account_*() Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-13  8:36 ` [PATCH -v4 06/10] futex,rt_mutex: Provide futex specific rt_mutex API Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-13  8:36 ` [PATCH -v4 07/10] futex: Change locking Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-13  8:36 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2016-12-13  8:36 ` [PATCH -v4 09/10] futex: Remove inconsistent hb/rt_mutex state magic Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-13  8:36 ` [PATCH -v4 10/10] futex: Pull rt_mutex_futex_unlock() out from under hb->lock Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-13 16:07 ` [PATCH -v4 00/10] FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI wobbles Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-22 11:02   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-22 15:36     ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-01  9:05       ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-03-03  9:35         ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-16 23:31 ` Darren Hart
2016-12-17 13:52   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-18 22:39     ` Darren Hart

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=20161213085730.563675201@infradead.org \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=bristot@redhat.com \
    --cc=dvhart@infradead.org \
    --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