From: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>
3.12-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
===============
commit 397335f004f41e5fcf7a795e94eb3ab83411a17c upstream.
The current deadlock detection logic does not work reliably due to the
following early exit path:
/*
* Drop out, when the task has no waiters. Note,
* top_waiter can be NULL, when we are in the deboosting
* mode!
*/
if (top_waiter && (!task_has_pi_waiters(task) ||
top_waiter != task_top_pi_waiter(task)))
goto out_unlock_pi;
So this not only exits when the task has no waiters, it also exits
unconditionally when the current waiter is not the top priority waiter
of the task.
So in a nested locking scenario, it might abort the lock chain walk
and therefor miss a potential deadlock.
Simple fix: Continue the chain walk, when deadlock detection is
enabled.
We also avoid the whole enqueue, if we detect the deadlock right away
(A-A). It's an optimization, but also prevents that another waiter who
comes in after the detection and before the task has undone the damage
observes the situation and detects the deadlock and returns
-EDEADLOCK, which is wrong as the other task is not in a deadlock
situation.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <la...@cn.fujitsu.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140522031949.725272...@linutronix.de
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikb...@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jsl...@suse.cz>
---
kernel/rtmutex.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rtmutex.c b/kernel/rtmutex.c
index 0dd6aec1cb6a..16d5356ce45b 100644
--- a/kernel/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/rtmutex.c
@@ -225,9 +225,16 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(struct task_struct
*task,
* top_waiter can be NULL, when we are in the deboosting
* mode!
*/
- if (top_waiter && (!task_has_pi_waiters(task) ||
- top_waiter != task_top_pi_waiter(task)))
- goto out_unlock_pi;
+ if (top_waiter) {
+ if (!task_has_pi_waiters(task))
+ goto out_unlock_pi;
+ /*
+ * If deadlock detection is off, we stop here if we
+ * are not the top pi waiter of the task.
+ */
+ if (!detect_deadlock && top_waiter != task_top_pi_waiter(task))
+ goto out_unlock_pi;
+ }
/*
* When deadlock detection is off then we check, if further
@@ -243,7 +250,12 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(struct task_struct
*task,
goto retry;
}
- /* Deadlock detection */
+ /*
+ * Deadlock detection. If the lock is the same as the original
+ * lock which caused us to walk the lock chain or if the
+ * current lock is owned by the task which initiated the chain
+ * walk, we detected a deadlock.
+ */
if (lock == orig_lock || rt_mutex_owner(lock) == top_task) {
debug_rt_mutex_deadlock(deadlock_detect, orig_waiter, lock);
raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
@@ -412,6 +424,18 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struct rt_mutex *lock,
unsigned long flags;
int chain_walk = 0, res;
+ /*
+ * Early deadlock detection. We really don't want the task to
+ * enqueue on itself just to untangle the mess later. It's not
+ * only an optimization. We drop the locks, so another waiter
+ * can come in before the chain walk detects the deadlock. So
+ * the other will detect the deadlock and return -EDEADLOCK,
+ * which is wrong, as the other waiter is not in a deadlock
+ * situation.
+ */
+ if (detect_deadlock && owner == task)
+ return -EDEADLK;
+
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&task->pi_lock, flags);
__rt_mutex_adjust_prio(task);
waiter->task = task;
--
2.0.0
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
