On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 02:28:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 02:18:43PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:35:52AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > + *
> > > + * Serialization and lifetime rules:
> > > + *
> > > + * hb->lock:
> > > + *
> > > + * hb -> futex_q, relation
> > > + * futex_q -> pi_state, relation
> > > + *
> > > + * (cannot be raw because hb can contain arbitrary amount
> > > + * of futex_q's)
> > > + *
> > > + * pi_mutex->wait_lock:
> > > + *
> > > + * {uval, pi_state}
> > > + *
> > > + * (and pi_mutex 'obviously')
> > > + *
> > > + * p->pi_lock:
> >
> > This documentation uses a mix of types and common variable names. I'd
> > recommend
> > some declarations just below "Serialization and lifetime rules:" to help
> > make
> > this explicit, e.g.:
> >
> > struct futex_pi_state *pi_state;
> > struct futex_hash_bucket *hb;
> > struct rt_mutex *pi_mutex;
> > struct futex_q *q;
> > task_struct *p;
>
> Yeah, not convinced it helps much. If you're stuck at that level, the
> rest of futex is going to make your head explode.
It just presented one more fork in the mindmap to go confirm types and names so
I was sure I was thinking of the same things as what was documented. Being
explicit avoids unnecessary confusion, reduces thought errors, and takes minimal
effort on our part. Well worth it IMHO.
>
> > > @@ -980,10 +1013,12 @@ void exit_pi_state_list(struct task_stru
> > > * the pi_state against the user space value. If correct, attach to
> > > * it.
> > > */
> > > +static int attach_to_pi_state(u32 __user *uaddr, u32 uval,
> > > + struct futex_pi_state *pi_state,
> > > struct futex_pi_state **ps)
> > > {
> > > pid_t pid = uval & FUTEX_TID_MASK;
> > > + int ret, uval2;
> >
> > The uval should be an unsigned type:
> >
> > u32 uval2;
>
> Right you are.
>
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * Userspace might have messed up non-PI and PI futexes [3]
> > > @@ -991,9 +1026,34 @@ static int attach_to_pi_state(u32 uval,
> > > if (unlikely(!pi_state))
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > + /*
> > > + * We get here with hb->lock held, and having found a
> > > + * futex_top_waiter(). This means that futex_lock_pi() of said futex_q
> > > + * has dropped the hb->lock in between queue_me() and unqueue_me_pi(),
> >
> > This context got here like this:
> >
> > futex_lock_pi
> > hb lock
> > futex_lock_pi_atomic
> > top waiter
> > attach_to_pi_state()
> >
> > The queue_me and unqueue_me_pi both come after this in futex_lock_pi.
> > Also, the hb lock is dropped in queue_me, not between queue_me and
> > unqueue_me_pi.
> >
> > Are you saying that in order to be here, there are at least two tasks
> > contending
> > for the lock, and one that has come before us has proceeded as far as
> > queue_me()
> > but has not yet entered unqueue_me_pi(), therefor we know there is a waiter
> > and
> > it has a pi_state? If so, I think we can make this much clearer by at least
> > noting the two tasks in play.
>
> The point is that this other task must have a reference, and since we
> now hold hb->lock, it cannot go away.
OK, so yes, two tasks. Noting the two task contexts somewhere in that comment
block would make this easier to follow - which is why we're adding the comment.
> > > @@ -1336,6 +1418,7 @@ static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uad
> > >
> > > if (cmpxchg_futex_value_locked(&curval, uaddr, uval, newval)) {
> > > ret = -EFAULT;
> > > +
> >
> > Stray whitespace addition? Not explicitly against coding-style, but I don't
> > normally see a new line before the closing brace leading to an else...
>
> I found it more readable that way. Sod checkpatch and co ;-)
Heh, I didn't run checkpatch, just found it odd and unrelated. I hesitate
to call you on style and superfluous change - but hey, if I'd make the comment
to people contributing to platform drivers, it would be hypocritical not to do
the same for you :-) And, if the feedback doesn't apply at this level, then I
should drop it as a barrier for the platform drivers - so serves as a good
litmus test.
--
Darren Hart
VMware Open Source Technology Center
