user/sven/linux.git/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c, branch v4.12

futex,rt_mutex: Fix rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock()

2017-05-22T19:57:18Z

Markus reported that the glibc/nptl/tst-robustpi8 test was failing after commit: cfafcd117da0 ("futex: Rework futex_lock_pi() to use rt_mutex_*_proxy_lock()") The following trace shows the problem: ld-linux-x86-64-2161 [019] .... 410.760971: SyS_futex: 00007ffbeb76b028: 80000875 op=FUTEX_LOCK_PI ld-linux-x86-64-2161 [019] ...1 410.760972: lock_pi_update_atomic: 00007ffbeb76b028: curval=80000875 uval=80000875 newval=80000875 ret=0 ld-linux-x86-64-2165 [011] .... 410.760978: SyS_futex: 00007ffbeb76b028: 80000875 op=FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI ld-linux-x86-64-2165 [011] d..1 410.760979: do_futex: 00007ffbeb76b028: curval=80000875 uval=80000875 newval=80000871 ret=0 ld-linux-x86-64-2165 [011] .... 410.760980: SyS_futex: 00007ffbeb76b028: 80000871 ret=0000 ld-linux-x86-64-2161 [019] .... 410.760980: SyS_futex: 00007ffbeb76b028: 80000871 ret=ETIMEDOUT Task 2165 does an UNLOCK_PI, assigning the lock to the waiter task 2161 which then returns with -ETIMEDOUT. That wrecks the lock state, because now the owner isn't aware it acquired the lock and removes the pending robust list entry. If 2161 is killed, the robust list will not clear out this futex and the subsequent acquire on this futex will then (correctly) result in -ESRCH which is unexpected by glibc, triggers an internal assertion and dies. Task 2161 Task 2165 rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock() timeout(); /* T2161 is still queued in the waiter list */ return -ETIMEDOUT; futex_unlock_pi() spin_lock(hb->lock); rtmutex_unlock() remove_rtmutex_waiter(T2161); mark_lock_available(); /* Make the next waiter owner of the user space side */ futex_uval = 2161; spin_unlock(hb->lock); spin_lock(hb->lock); rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock() if (rtmutex_owner() !== current) ... return FAIL; .... return -ETIMEOUT; This means that rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock() needs to call try_to_take_rt_mutex() so it can take over the rtmutex correctly which was assigned by the waker. If the rtmutex is owned by some other task then this call is harmless and just confirmes that the waiter is not able to acquire it. While there, fix what looks like a merge error which resulted in rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock() having two calls to fixup_rt_mutex_waiters() and rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock() not having any. Both should have one, since both potentially touch the waiter list. Fixes: 38d589f2fd08 ("futex,rt_mutex: Restructure rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock()") Reported-by: Markus Trippelsdorf Bug-Spotted-by: Thomas Gleixner Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: Florian Weimer Cc: Darren Hart Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: Markus Trippelsdorf Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170519154850.mlomgdsd26drq5j6@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner

rtmutex: Plug preempt count leak in rt_mutex_futex_unlock()

2017-04-05T14:59:37Z

mark_wakeup_next_waiter() already disables preemption, doing so again leaves us with an unpaired preempt_disable(). Fixes: 2a1c60299406 ("rtmutex: Deboost before waking up the top waiter") Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: xlpang@redhat.com Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1491379707.6538.2.camel@gmx.de Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner

rtmutex: Fix more prio comparisons

2017-04-04T09:44:07Z

There was a pure ->prio comparison left in try_to_wake_rt_mutex(), convert it to use rt_mutex_waiter_less(), noting that greater-or-equal is not-less (both in kernel priority view). This necessitated the introduction of cmp_task() which creates a pointer to an unnamed stack variable of struct rt_mutex_waiter type to compare against tasks. With this, we can now also create and employ rt_mutex_waiter_equal(). Reviewed-and-tested-by: Juri Lelli Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner 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: bristot@redhat.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170323150216.455584638@infradead.org Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner

rtmutex: Fix PI chain order integrity

2017-04-04T09:44:06Z

rt_mutex_waiter::prio is a copy of task_struct::prio which is updated during the PI chain walk, such that the PI chain order isn't messed up by (asynchronous) task state updates. Currently rt_mutex_waiter_less() uses task state for deadline tasks; this is broken, since the task state can, as said above, change asynchronously, causing the RB tree order to change without actual tree update -> FAIL. Fix this by also copying the deadline into the rt_mutex_waiter state and updating it along with its prio field. Ideally we would also force PI chain updates whenever DL tasks update their deadline parameter, but for first approximation this is less broken than it was. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 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: bristot@redhat.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170323150216.403992539@infradead.org Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner

sched/rtmutex: Refactor rt_mutex_setprio()

2017-04-04T09:44:06Z

With the introduction of SCHED_DEADLINE the whole notion that priority is a single number is gone, therefore the @prio argument to rt_mutex_setprio() doesn't make sense anymore. So rework the code to pass a pi_task instead. Note this also fixes a problem with pi_top_task caching; previously we would not set the pointer (call rt_mutex_update_top_task) if the priority didn't change, this could lead to a stale pointer. As for the XXX, I think its fine to use pi_task->prio, because if it differs from waiter->prio, a PI chain update is immenent. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 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: bristot@redhat.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170323150216.303827095@infradead.org Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner

rtmutex: Clean up

2017-04-04T09:44:05Z

Previous patches changed the meaning of the return value of rt_mutex_slowunlock(); update comments and code to reflect this. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 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: bristot@redhat.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170323150216.255058238@infradead.org Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner

sched/deadline/rtmutex: Dont miss the dl_runtime/dl_period update

2017-04-04T09:44:05Z

Currently dl tasks will actually return at the very beginning of rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain() in !detect_deadlock cases: if (waiter->prio == task->prio) { if (!detect_deadlock) goto out_unlock_pi; // out here else requeue = false; } As the deadline value of blocked deadline tasks(waiters) without changing their sched_class(thus prio doesn't change) never changes, this seems reasonable, but it actually misses the chance of updating rt_mutex_waiter's "dl_runtime(period)_copy" if a waiter updates its deadline parameters(dl_runtime, dl_period) or boosted waiter changes to !deadline class. Thus, force deadline task not out by adding the !dl_prio() condition. Signed-off-by: Xunlei Pang Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Acked-by: Steven Rostedt Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner Cc: juri.lelli@arm.com Cc: bigeasy@linutronix.de Cc: mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com Cc: jdesfossez@efficios.com Cc: bristot@redhat.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1460633827-345-7-git-send-email-xlpang@redhat.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170323150216.206577901@infradead.org Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner

sched/rtmutex/deadline: Fix a PI crash for deadline tasks

2017-04-04T09:44:05Z

A crash happened while I was playing with deadline PI rtmutex. BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000018 IP: [] rt_mutex_get_top_task+0x1f/0x30 PGD 232a75067 PUD 230947067 PMD 0 Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP CPU: 1 PID: 10994 Comm: a.out Not tainted Call Trace: [] enqueue_task+0x2c/0x80 [] activate_task+0x23/0x30 [] pull_dl_task+0x1d5/0x260 [] pre_schedule_dl+0x16/0x20 [] __schedule+0xd3/0x900 [] schedule+0x29/0x70 [] __rt_mutex_slowlock+0x4b/0xc0 [] rt_mutex_slowlock+0xd1/0x190 [] rt_mutex_timed_lock+0x53/0x60 [] futex_lock_pi.isra.18+0x28c/0x390 [] do_futex+0x190/0x5b0 [] SyS_futex+0x80/0x180 This is because rt_mutex_enqueue_pi() and rt_mutex_dequeue_pi() are only protected by pi_lock when operating pi waiters, while rt_mutex_get_top_task(), will access them with rq lock held but not holding pi_lock. In order to tackle it, we introduce new "pi_top_task" pointer cached in task_struct, and add new rt_mutex_update_top_task() to update its value, it can be called by rt_mutex_setprio() which held both owner's pi_lock and rq lock. Thus "pi_top_task" can be safely accessed by enqueue_task_dl() under rq lock. Originally-From: Peter Zijlstra Signed-off-by: Xunlei Pang Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Acked-by: Steven Rostedt Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner Cc: juri.lelli@arm.com Cc: bigeasy@linutronix.de Cc: mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com Cc: jdesfossez@efficios.com Cc: bristot@redhat.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170323150216.157682758@infradead.org Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner

rtmutex: Deboost before waking up the top waiter

2017-04-04T09:44:05Z

We should deboost before waking the high-priority task, such that we don't run two tasks with the same "state" (priority, deadline, sched_class, etc). In order to make sure the boosting task doesn't start running between unlock and deboost (due to 'spurious' wakeup), we move the deboost under the wait_lock, that way its serialized against the wait loop in __rt_mutex_slowlock(). Doing the deboost early can however lead to priority-inversion if current would get preempted after the deboost but before waking our high-prio task, hence we disable preemption before doing deboost, and enabling it after the wake up is over. This gets us the right semantic order, but most importantly however; this change ensures pointer stability for the next patch, where we have rt_mutex_setprio() cache a pointer to the top-most waiter task. If we, as before this change, do the wakeup first and then deboost, this pointer might point into thin air. [peterz: Changelog + patch munging] Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra Signed-off-by: Xunlei Pang Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Acked-by: Steven Rostedt Cc: juri.lelli@arm.com Cc: bigeasy@linutronix.de Cc: mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com Cc: jdesfossez@efficios.com Cc: bristot@redhat.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170323150216.110065320@infradead.org Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner

futex: Drop hb->lock before enqueueing on the rtmutex

2017-03-23T18:14:59Z

When PREEMPT_RT_FULL does the spinlock -> rt_mutex substitution the PI chain code will (falsely) report a deadlock and BUG. The problem is that it hold hb->lock (now an rt_mutex) while doing task_blocks_on_rt_mutex on the futex's pi_state::rtmutex. This, when interleaved just right with futex_unlock_pi() leads it to believe to see an AB-BA deadlock. Task1 (holds rt_mutex, Task2 (does FUTEX_LOCK_PI) does FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI) lock hb->lock lock rt_mutex (as per start_proxy) lock hb->lock Which is a trivial AB-BA. It is not an actual deadlock, because it won't be holding hb->lock by the time it actually blocks on the rt_mutex, but the chainwalk code doesn't know that and it would be a nightmare to handle this gracefully. To avoid this problem, do the same as in futex_unlock_pi() and drop hb->lock after acquiring wait_lock. This still fully serializes against futex_unlock_pi(), since adding to the wait_list does the very same lock dance, and removing it holds both locks. Aside of solving the RT problem this makes the lock and unlock mechanism symetric and reduces the hb->lock held time. Reported-and-tested-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: juri.lelli@arm.com 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/20170322104152.161341537@infradead.org Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner