From: Xunlei Pang <xpang@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, xlpang@redhat.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/deadline/rtmutex: Fix a PI crash for deadline tasks
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 21:34:24 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56FE78E0.5060504@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <19912883-8AB1-4DFD-A0E1-F23057785243@infradead.org>
On 2016/04/01 at 21:12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On 1 April 2016 14:23:58 CEST, Xunlei Pang <xpang@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>>> We need this iff lock owner has the deadline priority.
>>> How is this deadline specific, those functions you modify are
>>> deadline/rt agnostic.
>> I checked the code, currently only deadline accesses the
>> pi_waiters/pi_waiters_leftmost
>> without pi_lock held via rt_mutex_get_top_task(), other cases all have
>> pi_lock held.
>>
>> So adding the condition.
> How does that not suggest fixing the deadline code?
I did tried that at first, but found it very hard when processing
pull_dl_task(push_dl_task can crash as well) like:
double_lock_balance(this_rq, src_rq);
p = pick_earliest_pushable_dl_task(src_rq, this_cpu);
/* and for each @p, we must hold its pi_lock,
doing this once rq is locked will cause deadlock. */
Ditto for enqueue_task_dl()->rt_mutex_get_top_task(), as rq is locked.
If we unlock rq first and then lock pi_lock, this may cause other problems
due to unlocking rq.
Any better ideas is welcome.
Regards,
Xunlei
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-01 13:34 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 [this message]
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
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=56FE78E0.5060504@redhat.com \
--to=xpang@redhat.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--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