Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 15:29:35 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: xlpang@redhat.com
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/deadline/rtmutex: Fix a PI crash for deadline tasks
Message-ID: <20160409132935.GU3448@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <56FE78E0.5060504@redhat.com>
 <20160401215143.GB2906@worktop>
 <57037974.1020002@redhat.com>
 <20160405091954.GI3448@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160405092954.GC24771@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160408122510.15978179@gandalf.local.home>
 <20160408173835.GC1087@worktop>
 <20160408145055.13c98a75@gandalf.local.home>
 <20160408185916.GQ3448@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <57087633.3020700@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <57087633.3020700@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 901
Lines: 20

On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 11:25:39AM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:

> > In any case, I just realized we do not in fact provide this guarantee
> > (of pointing to a blocked task) that needs a bit more work.
> 
> Current patch calls rt_mutex_adjust_prio() before wake_up_q() the
> wakee, at that moment the wakee has been removed by
> rt_mutex_slowunlock()->mark_wakeup_next_waiter(), from current's
> pi_waiters, rt_mutex_adjust_prio() won't see this wakee, so I think
> this should not be problem.

No, any wakeup after mark_wakeup_next_waiter() will make the task run.
And since we must always consider spurious wakeups, we cannot rely on us
(eg. our wake_up_q call) being the one and only.

Therefore it is possible and the only thing that stands between us and
doom is the fact that the wake_q stuff holds a task reference.

But we cannot guarantee that the task we have a pointer to is in fact
blocked.