mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "lkml, " <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
	Dinakar Guniguntala <dino@in.ibm.com>,
	John Stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: futex: wakeup race and futex_q woken state definition
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:23:30 +0200 (CEST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0909171719260.2889@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4AB25076.8020406@us.ibm.com>

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Darren Hart wrote:
> > 	/*
> > 	 * !plist_node_empty() is safe here without any lock.
> > 	 * q.lock_ptr != 0 is not safe, because of ordering against wakeup.
> > 	 */
> > 	if (likely(!plist_node_empty(&q->list))) {
> > 
> > If we move set_current_state() before the queue_me() this check is
> > still an optimization to avoid the schedule call in case we have been
> > woken up already. But the comment is still wrong as the wakeup code
> > has changed:
> > 
> > The old version did:
> > 
> >      plist_del(&q->list);
> >      wake_up_all(&q->waiters);
> >      q->lock_ptr = NULL;
> > 
> > Today we do:
> > 
> >      p = q->task;
> >      get_task_struct(p);
> >      plist_del(&q->list);
> >      q->lock_ptr = NULL;
> >      wake_up_state(p);
> >      put_task_struct(p);
> > 
> > We changed this because it makes no sense to use a waitqueue for a
> > single task.
> 
> Right.
> 
> 
> However, my bigger concern still remains.  If the above is only an
> optimization, we appear to have a race with wakeup where we can see a
> non-empty list here and decide to schedule and have the wakeup code remove us
> from the list, hiding it from all future futex related wakeups (signal and
> timeout would still work).

No.

Sleeper does:

	set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
	
	if (!plist_empty())
	   schedule();

So when the list removal happened before set_current_state() we don't
schedule. If the wakeup happens _after_ set_current_state() then the
wake_up_state() call will bring us back to running.

> We have also been seeing a race with the requeue_pi code with a JVM benchmark
> where the apparent owner of the pi mutex remains blocked on the condvar - this
> can be explained by the race I'm suspecting.  Also, futex_requeue_pi() is
> using futex_wait_queue_me() which expects the waker to remove the futex_q from
> the list, which isn't how things work for PI mutexes.  In an experiment, I
> moved the spin_unlock() out of queueme() and right before the call to
> schedule() to narrow the race window, and the hang we were experiencing
> appears to have gone away.

The correct thing to do is to move set_current_state() before queue_me().

Thanks,

	tglx

  reply	other threads:[~2009-09-17 15:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-09-16 23:51 Darren Hart
2009-09-17  8:11 ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-09-17 15:06   ` Darren Hart
2009-09-17 15:23     ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2009-09-21  6:39       ` 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=alpine.LFD.2.00.0909171719260.2889@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=dino@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    /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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®