From: Xunlei Pang <xpang@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
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: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:22:15 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <570A0D37.8080400@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160409132935.GU3448@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 2016/04/09 at 21:29, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.
Does that really matters? the pointer is accessed on behalf of current, and current
will call rt_mutex_adjust_prio() very soon to update the right pointer.
Also the pointer is used to update current's deadline/runtime, we can restore these
params in rt_mutex_setprio() for deboost cases. I just checked current code, it did
nothing to restore current's deadline/runtime when deboosting, maybe we can leave
this job to future deadline bandwidth inheritance?
Regards,
Xunlei
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-10 8:22 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
2016-04-10 8:22 ` Xunlei Pang [this message]
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=570A0D37.8080400@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=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