From: Lee Jones lee.jones@linaro.org
From: Peter Zijlstra peterz@infradead.org
[Upstream commit 73d786bd043ebc855f349c81ea805f6b11cbf2aa ]
There is a weird state in the futex_unlock_pi() path when it interleaves with a concurrent futex_lock_pi() at the point where it drops hb->lock.
In this case, it can happen that the rt_mutex wait_list and the futex_q disagree on pending waiters, in particular rt_mutex will find no pending waiters where futex_q thinks there are. In this case the rt_mutex unlock code cannot assign an owner.
The futex side fixup code has to cleanup the inconsistencies with quite a bunch of interesting corner cases.
Simplify all this by changing wake_futex_pi() to return -EAGAIN when this situation occurs. This then gives the futex_lock_pi() code the opportunity to continue and the retried futex_unlock_pi() will now observe a coherent state.
The only problem is that this breaks RT timeliness guarantees. That is, consider the following scenario:
T1 and T2 are both pinned to CPU0. prio(T2) > prio(T1)
CPU0
T1 lock_pi() queue_me() <- Waiter is visible
preemption
T2 unlock_pi() loops with -EAGAIN forever
Which is undesirable for PI primitives. Future patches will rectify this.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) peterz@infradead.org Cc: juri.lelli@arm.com Cc: bigeasy@linutronix.de Cc: xlpang@redhat.com Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org Cc: mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com Cc: jdesfossez@efficios.com Cc: dvhart@infradead.org Cc: bristot@redhat.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170322104151.850383690@infradead.org Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de [Lee: Back-ported to solve a dependency] Signed-off-by: Lee Jones lee.jones@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org --- kernel/futex.c | 52 +++++++++++++++------------------------------------- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/futex.c +++ b/kernel/futex.c @@ -1389,12 +1389,19 @@ static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uad new_owner = rt_mutex_next_owner(&pi_state->pi_mutex);
/* - * It is possible that the next waiter (the one that brought - * this owner to the kernel) timed out and is no longer - * waiting on the lock. - */ - if (!new_owner) - new_owner = this->task; + * When we interleave with futex_lock_pi() where it does + * rt_mutex_timed_futex_lock(), we might observe @this futex_q waiter, + * but the rt_mutex's wait_list can be empty (either still, or again, + * depending on which side we land). + * + * When this happens, give up our locks and try again, giving the + * futex_lock_pi() instance time to complete, either by waiting on the + * rtmutex or removing itself from the futex queue. + */ + if (!new_owner) { + raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock); + return -EAGAIN; + }
/* * We pass it to the next owner. The WAITERS bit is always @@ -2337,7 +2344,6 @@ static long futex_wait_restart(struct re */ static int fixup_owner(u32 __user *uaddr, struct futex_q *q, int locked) { - struct task_struct *owner; int ret = 0;
if (locked) { @@ -2351,43 +2357,15 @@ static int fixup_owner(u32 __user *uaddr }
/* - * Catch the rare case, where the lock was released when we were on the - * way back before we locked the hash bucket. - */ - if (q->pi_state->owner == current) { - /* - * Try to get the rt_mutex now. This might fail as some other - * task acquired the rt_mutex after we removed ourself from the - * rt_mutex waiters list. - */ - if (rt_mutex_futex_trylock(&q->pi_state->pi_mutex)) { - locked = 1; - goto out; - } - - /* - * pi_state is incorrect, some other task did a lock steal and - * we returned due to timeout or signal without taking the - * rt_mutex. Too late. - */ - raw_spin_lock(&q->pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock); - owner = rt_mutex_owner(&q->pi_state->pi_mutex); - if (!owner) - owner = rt_mutex_next_owner(&q->pi_state->pi_mutex); - raw_spin_unlock(&q->pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock); - ret = fixup_pi_state_owner(uaddr, q, owner); - goto out; - } - - /* * Paranoia check. If we did not take the lock, then we should not be * the owner of the rt_mutex. */ - if (rt_mutex_owner(&q->pi_state->pi_mutex) == current) + if (rt_mutex_owner(&q->pi_state->pi_mutex) == current) { printk(KERN_ERR "fixup_owner: ret = %d pi-mutex: %p " "pi-state %p\n", ret, q->pi_state->pi_mutex.owner, q->pi_state->owner); + }
out: return ret ? ret : locked;