lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Aug]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH -v2 4/4] locking/mutex: Add lock handoff to avoid starvation
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 06:00:19PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 08/25/2016 02:37 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >@@ -468,9 +496,12 @@ void __sched mutex_unlock(struct mutex *
> > DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(__mutex_owner(lock) != current);
> > #endif
> >
> >- owner = atomic_long_fetch_and(MUTEX_FLAGS,&lock->owner);
> >+ owner = atomic_long_read(&lock->owner);
> >+ if (!(owner& MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF))
> >+ owner = atomic_long_fetch_and(MUTEX_FLAGS,&lock->owner);
> >+
> > if (__owner_flags(owner))
> >- __mutex_unlock_slowpath(lock);
> >+ __mutex_unlock_slowpath(lock, owner);
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(mutex_unlock);
>
> I don't think the race condition is fixed when we don't make sure that lock
> handoff only happens from current=>new. The problem is due to the fact that
> the MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF check in the unlock fastpath isn't serialized by the
> wait_lock. As a result, it is possible that the owner is NULL while the
> HANDOFF bit is set. Or an optimistic spinner may have stolen the lock in the
> interim.

You're right.. I'll try again tomorrow.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-09-17 09:57    [W:0.459 / U:0.152 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site