Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 14:10:45 +0000
From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
To: Nicolai =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=E4hnle?= <nhaehnle@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Nicolai =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=E4hnle?= <Nicolai.Haehnle@amd.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <dev@mblankhorst.nl>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] locking/ww_mutex: Add waiters in stamp order
Message-ID: <20161130141045.GR23336@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
        Nicolai =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=E4hnle?= <nhaehnle@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Nicolai =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=E4hnle?= <Nicolai.Haehnle@amd.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <dev@mblankhorst.nl>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
References: <1480335612-12069-1-git-send-email-nhaehnle@gmail.com>
 <1480335612-12069-6-git-send-email-nhaehnle@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1480335612-12069-6-git-send-email-nhaehnle@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1596
Lines: 56

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 01:20:06PM +0100, Nicolai H?hnle wrote:
> From: Nicolai H?hnle <Nicolai.Haehnle@amd.com>
> 
> Add regular waiters in stamp order. Keep adding waiters that have no
> context in FIFO order and take care not to starve them.
> 
> While adding our task as a waiter, back off if we detect that there is a
> waiter with a lower stamp in front of us.
> 
> Make sure to call lock_contended even when we back off early.

I'm hitting
[   86.202749] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 813 at ./include/linux/ww_mutex.h:292 stress_inorder_work+0x436/0x4b5 [test_ww_mutex]
[   86.202885] DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(!ctx->contending_lock)

which if I understand correctly is due to

> +static inline int __sched
> +__ww_mutex_add_waiter(struct mutex_waiter *waiter,
> +		      struct mutex *lock,
> +		      struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx)
> +{
> +	if (ww_ctx) {
> +		struct mutex_waiter *cur;
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * Add the waiter before the first waiter with a higher stamp.
> +		 * Waiters without a context are skipped to avoid starving
> +		 * them.
> +		 */
> +		list_for_each_entry(cur, &lock->wait_list, list) {
> +			if (!cur->ww_ctx)
> +				continue;
> +
> +			if (__ww_mutex_stamp_after(ww_ctx, cur->ww_ctx)) {
> +				/* Back off immediately if necessary. */
> +				if (ww_ctx->acquired > 0)
> +					return -EDEADLK;

not setting ww_ctx->contending_lock here.

> +
> +				continue;
> +			}
> +
> +			list_add_tail(&waiter->list, &cur->list);
> +			return 0;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	list_add_tail(&waiter->list, &lock->wait_list);
> +	return 0;
> +}

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre