B1;2802;0cOn Wed, 4 Nov 2015, Yimin Deng wrote:
> It seems that the purpose to call the remove_waiter() is to remove the
> waiter added by “plist_add(&waiter->list_entry, &lock->wait_list);” in
> the task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(). But in the scenario above there's no
> waiter on the lock yet and
> the waiter has not been added into the wait list of the lock in the
> task_blocks_on_rt_mutex() due to the failure “-EAGAIN”. So it reported
> kernel BUG in the rt_mutex_top_waiter().
>
> I modified it as below and the issue seems disappear.
> - if (unlikely(ret))
> + if (unlikely(ret && (-EAGAIN != ret)))
> remove_waiter(lock, waiter);
>
> Could the scenario above be possible? If so, how to resolve this issue?
> Thanks!
Yes it is possible. Nice detective work!
Your solution is correct, but actually it's not sufficient, because we
have another possibility to return early without being queued
(-EDEADLOCK). Find the full solution below.
Thanks for tracking that down!
tglx
---
diff --git a/kernel/rtmutex.c b/kernel/rtmutex.c
index 7601c1332a88..0e6505d5ce4a 100644
--- a/kernel/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/rtmutex.c
@@ -1003,11 +1003,18 @@ static void wakeup_next_waiter(struct rt_mutex *lock)
static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mutex *lock,
struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter)
{
- bool is_top_waiter = (waiter == rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock));
struct task_struct *owner = rt_mutex_owner(lock);
struct rt_mutex *next_lock = NULL;
+ bool is_top_waiter = false;
unsigned long flags;
+ /*
+ * @waiter might be not queued when task_blocks_on_rt_mutex()
+ * returned early so @lock might not have any waiters.
+ */
+ if (rt_mutex_has_waiters())
+ is_top_waiter = (waiter == rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock));
+
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(¤t->pi_lock, flags);
rt_mutex_dequeue(lock, waiter);
current->pi_blocked_on = NULL;
