Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] locking/ww_mutex: Fix a deadlock affecting ww_mutexes
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
References: <1479900325-28358-1-git-send-email-nhaehnle@gmail.com>
 <20161123140336.GU3092@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20161123142525.ns2pkyp4bo2sa5z2@phenom.ffwll.local>
 <b1320ee3-1d68-8ebe-03ab-b491b04b5e6f@gmail.com>
 <20161124114007.GE3092@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAKMK7uEBMg8Hps5rW6hK4sgzTr9ek2jvG35HzePp1TWw-uA4HA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161124115601.GR3207@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
CC: =?UTF-8?Q?Nicolai_H=c3=a4hnle?= <nhaehnle@gmail.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Nicolai_H=c3=a4hnle?= <nicolai.haehnle@amd.com>
Message-ID: <6ab13a2e-fea0-55b0-8828-150d99ae6fef@amd.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 13:05:01 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20161124115601.GR3207@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Nov 2016 12:05:13.7928 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR12MB1187
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1666
Lines: 35

On 24.11.2016 12:56, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 12:52:25PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I do believe we can win a bit by keeping the wait list sorted, if we also
>>>> make sure that waiters don't add themselves in the first place if they see
>>>> that a deadlock situation cannot be avoided.
>>>>
>>>> I will probably want to extend struct mutex_waiter with ww_mutex-specific
>>>> fields to facilitate this (i.e. ctx pointer, perhaps stamp as well to reduce
>>>> pointer-chasing). That should be fine since it lives on the stack.
>>>
>>> Right, shouldn't be a problem I think.
>>>
>>> The only 'problem' I can see with using that is that its possible to mix
>>> ww and !ww waiters through ww_mutex_lock(.ctx = NULL). This makes the
>>> list order somewhat tricky.
>>>
>>> Ideally we'd remove that feature, although I see its actually used quite
>>> a bit :/
>>
>> I guess we could create a small fake acquire_ctx for single-lock
>> paths. That way callers still don't need to deal with having an
>> explicit ctx, but we can assume the timestamp (for ensuring fairness)
>> is available for all cases. Otherwise there's indeed a problem with
>> correctly (well fairly) interleaving ctx and non-ctx lockers I think.
>
> Actually tried that, but we need a ww_class to get a stamp from, and
> ww_mutex_lock() doesn't have one of those..

The acquire context needs to be live until the unlock anyway, so this is 
something that requires modifying the callers of ww_mutex_lock. Those 
should all have a ww_class available, or something is very wrong :)

Nicolai