[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] drm: Fix lock order reversal between mmap_sem and struct_mutex.
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 09:31 +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 22:02 +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> It looks to me like the driver preferred locking order is
> >>
> >> object_mutex (which happens to be the device global struct_mutex)
> >> mmap_sem
> >> offset_mutex.
> >>
> >> So if one could avoid using the struct_mutex for object bookkeeping (A
> >> separate lock) then
> >> vm_open() and vm_close() would adhere to that locking order as well,
> >> simply by not taking the struct_mutex at all.
> >>
> >> So only fault() remains, in which that locking order is reversed.
> >> Personally I think the trylock ->reschedule->retry method with proper
> >> commenting is a good solution. It will be the _only_ place where locking
> >> order is reversed and it is done in a deadlock-safe manner. Note that
> >> fault() doesn't really fail, but requests a retry from user-space with
> >> rescheduling to give the process holding the struct_mutex time to
> >> release it.
> >>
> >
> > It doesn't do the reschedule -- need_resched() will check if the current
> > task was marked to be scheduled away,

> Yes. my mistake. set_tsk_need_resched() would be the proper call. If I'm
> correctly informed, that would kick in the scheduler _after_ the
> mmap_sem() is released, just before returning to user-space.

Yes, but it would still life-lock in the RT example given in the other

> > furthermore yield based locking
> > sucks chunks.
> >
> Yes, but AFAICT in this situation it is the only way to reverse locking
> order in a deadlock safe manner. If there is a lot of contention it will
> eat cpu. Unfortunately since the struct_mutex is such a wide lock there
> will probably be contention in some situations.

I'd be surprised if this were the only solution. Maybe its the easiest,
but not one I'll support.

> BTW isn't this quite common in distributed resource management, when you
> can't ensure that all requestors will request resources in the same order?
> Try to grab all resources you need for an operation. If you fail to get
> one, release the resources you already have, sleep waiting for the
> failing one to be available and then retry.

Not if you're building deterministic systems. Such constructs are highly

Furthermore, this isn't really a distributed system is it?

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-20 09:51    [W:0.116 / U:0.992 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site