On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 10:19:26 +0200
Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Changes since v3:
> >
> > Clark reported that he was seeing a large latency when he added this
> > patch. I tested it out on a 8 logical CPU box, and sure enough I was
> > seeing it too. After spending the day debugging why, I found that I had
> > a bug in rt_mutex_getprio(), where I could do:
> >
> > min(task_top_pi_waiter(task)->pi_list_entry.prio, prio)
> >
> > when there was no "top_pi_waiter", which would give garbage as a
> > result. This would let some tasks have higher priority than they
> > should, and cause other tasks that should have high priority not run.
>
> Would a sanity check like the one below have helped? (untested and
> such)
Actually, if I had run this with CONFIG_DEBUG_PI_LIST then this would
have triggered:
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PI_LIST
# define plist_first_entry(head, type, member) \
({ \
WARN_ON(plist_head_empty(head)); \
container_of(plist_first(head), type, member); \
})
#else
# define plist_first_entry(head, type, member) \
container_of(plist_first(head), type, member)
#endif
-- Steve
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
>
> ==========>
> kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h b/kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h
> index 7431a9c..36b1ce8 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h
> @@ -85,6 +85,7 @@ static inline int task_has_pi_waiters(struct task_struct *p)
> static inline struct rt_mutex_waiter *
> task_top_pi_waiter(struct task_struct *p)
> {
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(!p->pi_waiters_leftmost);
> return rb_entry(p->pi_waiters_leftmost, struct rt_mutex_waiter,
> pi_tree_entry);
> }
--
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
