----- Original Message -----
> From: "Linus Torvalds" <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
> To: "Jan Stancek" <jstan...@redhat.com>
> Cc: "Peter Zijlstra" <pet...@infradead.org>, "Linux Kernel Mailing List"
> <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "Srikar
> Dronamraju" <sri...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, "Davidlohr Bueso"
> <davidl...@hp.com>, "Ingo Molnar" <mi...@kernel.org>,
> "Larry Woodman" <lwood...@redhat.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 9 April, 2014 12:30:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] futex: avoid race between requeue and wake
>
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Jan Stancek <jstan...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > I ran reproducer with following change on s390x system, where this
> > can be reproduced usually within seconds:
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c
> > index 67dacaf..9150ffd 100644
> > --- a/kernel/futex.c
> > +++ b/kernel/futex.c
> > @@ -1095,6 +1095,7 @@ static int unlock_futex_pi(u32 __user *uaddr, u32
> > uval)
> > static inline void
> > double_lock_hb(struct futex_hash_bucket *hb1, struct futex_hash_bucket
> > *hb2)
> > {
> > + hb_waiters_inc(hb2);
> > if (hb1 <= hb2) {
> > spin_lock(&hb1->lock);
> > if (hb1 < hb2)
> > @@ -1111,6 +1112,7 @@ double_unlock_hb(struct futex_hash_bucket *hb1,
> > struct futex_hash_bucket *hb2)
> > spin_unlock(&hb1->lock);
> > if (hb1 != hb2)
> > spin_unlock(&hb2->lock);
> > + hb_waiters_dec(hb2);
> > }
> >
> > /*
> >
> > Reproducer is running without failures over an hour now and
> > made ~1.4 million iterations.
I let this version run over night on single s390x system,
there were no failures.
>
> Ok, that's encouraging. That is the smallest patch I could come up
> with, but as mentioned, it's not optimal. We only need it for
> futex_requeue(), but if we do it there we'd have to handle all the
> different error cases (there's only one call to double_lock_hb(), but
> due to the error cases there's four calls to double_unlock_hb().
>
> I'm not sure how much we care. The simple patch basically adds two
> (unnecessary) atomics to the futex_wake_op() path. I don't know how
> critical that path is - not as critical as the regular "futex_wake()",
> I'd expect, but I guess pthread_cond_signal() is the main user.
>
> So I'll have to leave this decision to the futex people. But the
> attached slightly more complex patch *may* be the better one.
>
> May I bother you to test this one too? I really think that
> futex_requeue() is the only user that should need this, so doing it
> there rather than in double_[un]lock_hb() should be slightly more
> optimal, but who knows what I've missed. We clearly *all* missed this
> race back when the ordering rules were documented..
I'm running reproducer with this patch applied on 3 systems:
- two s390x systems where this can be reproduced within seconds
- x86_64 Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5240 @ 3.00GHz, where I could
reproduce it on average in ~3 minutes.
It's running without failure over 4 hours now.
Regards,
Jan
>
> Still hoping for comments from PeterZ and Davidlohr.
>
> Linus
>
--
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/
