On 07/12/2010 08:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 22:40 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010, Darren Hart wrote:
On 07/10/2010 12:41 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 15:33 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
Out of curiosity, what's wrong with holding his pi_lock across the
wakeup? He can _try_ to block, but can't until pi state is stable.
I presume there's a big fat gotcha that's just not obvious to futex
locking newbie :)
Nor to some of us that have been engrossed in futexes for the last couple
years! I discussed the pi_lock across the wakeup issue with Thomas. While this
fixes the problem for this particular failure case, it doesn't protect
against:
<tglx> assume the following:
<tglx> t1 is on the condvar
<tglx> t2 does the requeue dance and t1 is now blocked on the outer futex
<tglx> t3 takes hb->lock for a futex in the same bucket
<tglx> t2 wakes due to signal/timeout
<tglx> t2 blocks on hb->lock
You are likely to have not hit the above scenario because you only had one
condvar, so the hash_buckets were not heavily shared and you weren't likely to
hit:
<tglx> t3 takes hb->lock for a futex in the same bucket
I'm going to roll up a patchset with your (Mike) spin_trylock patch and run it
through some tests. I'd still prefer a way to detect early wakeup without
having to grab the hb->lock(), but I haven't found it yet.
+ while(!spin_trylock(&hb->lock))
+ cpu_relax();
ret = handle_early_requeue_pi_wakeup(hb,&q,&key2, to);
spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
And this is nasty as it will create unbound priority inversion :(
Oh ma gawd, _it's a train_ :>
Seriously.
I have a fix. Cleaning it up as we speak, still hope to send out tonight.
--
Darren Hart
IBM Linux Technology Center
Real-Time Linux Team
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
