iv/linux
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

locking/rtmutex: Prevent spurious EDEADLK return caused by ww_mutexes

Browse Source 
rtmutex based ww_mutexes can legitimately create a cycle in the lock graph
which can be observed by a blocker which didn't cause the problem:

   P1: A, ww_A, ww_B
   P2: ww_B, ww_A
   P3: A

P3 might therefore be trapped in the ww_mutex induced cycle and run into
the lock depth limitation of rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain() which returns
-EDEADLK to the caller.

Disable the deadlock detection walk when the chain walk observes a
ww_mutex to prevent this looping.

[ tglx: Split it apart and added changelog ]

Reported-by: Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Fixes: add461325ec5 ("locking/rtmutex: Extend the rtmutex core to support ww_mutex")
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/YSeWjCHoK4v5OcOt@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
This commit is contained in:
Peter Zijlstra 2021-08-26 09:36:53 +02:00 committed by Thomas Gleixner
parent 37e8abff2b
commit 6467822b8c
1 changed files with 25 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

25
kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
View File

@ -656,6 +656,31 @@ static int __sched rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(struct task_struct *task,
if (next_lock != waiter->lock)
goto out_unlock_pi;
/*
* There could be 'spurious' loops in the lock graph due to ww_mutex,
* consider:
*
* P1: A, ww_A, ww_B
* P2: ww_B, ww_A
* P3: A
*
* P3 should not return -EDEADLK because it gets trapped in the cycle
* created by P1 and P2 (which will resolve -- and runs into
* max_lock_depth above). Therefore disable detect_deadlock such that
* the below termination condition can trigger once all relevant tasks
* are boosted.
*
* Even when we start with ww_mutex we can disable deadlock detection,
* since we would supress a ww_mutex induced deadlock at [6] anyway.
* Supressing it here however is not sufficient since we might still
* hit [6] due to adjustment driven iteration.
*
* NOTE: if someone were to create a deadlock between 2 ww_classes we'd
* utterly fail to report it; lockdep should.
*/
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) && waiter->ww_ctx && detect_deadlock)
detect_deadlock = false;
/*
* Drop out, when the task has no waiters. Note,
* top_waiter can be NULL, when we are in the deboosting