Re: [PATCH 4/4] test-ww_mutex: Retry lock acquisition after timeout if deadlocked

[Haakon Bugge <haakon.bugge@oracle.com>]

> On 18 Jun 2026, at 20:55, John Stultz <jstultz@google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 5:13 AM Håkon Bugge <haakon.bugge@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> stress_inorder_work() terminates when its timeout expires. If the
> final lock acquisition attempt returns -EDEADLK at that point, the
> test may report a false failure even though the deadlock would have
> been resolved shortly thereafter. Retry a limited number of times
> after timeout before reporting failure.
> 
> Without this commit, we may see in the log:
> 
>  Beginning ww (wound) mutex selftests
>  stress (stress_inorder_work) failed with -35
> 
> Fixes: cfa92b6d5207 ("locking/ww_mutex/test: Make sure we bail out instead of livelock")
> Signed-off-by: Håkon Bugge <haakon.bugge@oracle.com>
> ---
> kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c b/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
> index 6b29a7a8f5fba..95de03179eac0 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
> @@ -444,6 +444,7 @@ static void stress_inorder_work(struct work_struct *work)
>       struct ww_acquire_ctx ctx;
>       int *order;
>       int err;
> +       int attempts_after_tmout = 10000;
> 
>       stress->result = -ENOMEM;
> 
> @@ -476,7 +477,7 @@ static void stress_inorder_work(struct work_struct *work)
>                       ww_mutex_unlock(&locks[order[n]]);
> 
>               if (err == -EDEADLK) {
> -                       if (!time_after(jiffies, stress->timeout)) {
> +                       if ((!time_after(jiffies, stress->timeout)) || attempts_after_tmout--) {
>                               ww_mutex_lock_slow(&locks[order[contended]], &ctx);
>                               goto retry;
>                       }
> 
> Thanks for sending this out! I definitely have seen timeouts hit in my
> previous testing. Though, the approach here of "trying harder after
> the timeout" at first glance strikes me as like a procrastinator's
> panic. :)
> 
> Hehe, I think the undersigned is a good example of a procrastinator ;-)
> 
> It might be nice to have a bit more context in the commit message as
> to the soundness of this approach.
> 
> I wrote something about it the cover letter:
> 
> <quote>
> It is worth mentioning that the last patch retries up to 10,000 lock
> acquisitions after timeout. This value was determined empirically: 10
> and 100 retries were insufficient on the test systems, while 10,000
> provided stable results and avoided false negatives.
> </quote>
> 
> Shall I add that to the commit message?
> 
> If the deadlock resolution takes
> longer then we expect in time,
> 
> That is not the case. When we terminate due to timeout, we have no
> resolution of the deadlock. I view it as there is a probability we run
> into deadlock, let's say 10%, for each iteration. Now, if we terminate
> due to timeout - and - we are unlucky and the last iteration
> deadlocked, we cannot just return -EDEADLK, as that will mark the test
> as failed. Instead, we retry some more iterations in order to resolve
> the deadlock.
> 
> is there a reason the number of
> iterations tried is also important? Is the key to this change just
> maybe ensuring we got enough cputime within the timeout?   ww_mutexes
> are intended to ensure forward progress,  but the apparent livelocks
> seen prior to cfa92b6d5207 maybe should hint something else might be
> going on, so while this may eliminate any timeouts hit due to
> scheduling delays, just trying more may not resolve all failures here.
> 
> So, no objections with the change here, but maybe its worth improving
> the commit message a bit more?
> 
> Yes, let me know how you feel about adding what I wrote in the
> cover-letter quoted above to the commit message.
> 
> Thxs, Håkon