1
linux/kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h

164 lines
4.1 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

/*
* RT Mutexes: blocking mutual exclusion locks with PI support
*
* started by Ingo Molnar and Thomas Gleixner:
*
* Copyright (C) 2004-2006 Red Hat, Inc., Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
* Copyright (C) 2006, Timesys Corp., Thomas Gleixner <tglx@timesys.com>
*
* This file contains the private data structure and API definitions.
*/
#ifndef __KERNEL_RTMUTEX_COMMON_H
#define __KERNEL_RTMUTEX_COMMON_H
#include <linux/rtmutex.h>
#include <linux/sched/wake_q.h>
/*
* This is the control structure for tasks blocked on a rt_mutex,
* which is allocated on the kernel stack on of the blocked task.
*
* @tree_entry: pi node to enqueue into the mutex waiters tree
* @pi_tree_entry: pi node to enqueue into the mutex owner waiters tree
* @task: task reference to the blocked task
*/
struct rt_mutex_waiter {
struct rb_node tree_entry;
struct rb_node pi_tree_entry;
struct task_struct *task;
struct rt_mutex *lock;
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES
unsigned long ip;
struct pid *deadlock_task_pid;
struct rt_mutex *deadlock_lock;
#endif
sched/deadline: Add SCHED_DEADLINE inheritance logic Some method to deal with rt-mutexes and make sched_dl interact with the current PI-coded is needed, raising all but trivial issues, that needs (according to us) to be solved with some restructuring of the pi-code (i.e., going toward a proxy execution-ish implementation). This is under development, in the meanwhile, as a temporary solution, what this commits does is: - ensure a pi-lock owner with waiters is never throttled down. Instead, when it runs out of runtime, it immediately gets replenished and it's deadline is postponed; - the scheduling parameters (relative deadline and default runtime) used for that replenishments --during the whole period it holds the pi-lock-- are the ones of the waiting task with earliest deadline. Acting this way, we provide some kind of boosting to the lock-owner, still by using the existing (actually, slightly modified by the previous commit) pi-architecture. We would stress the fact that this is only a surely needed, all but clean solution to the problem. In the end it's only a way to re-start discussion within the community. So, as always, comments, ideas, rants, etc.. are welcome! :-) Signed-off-by: Dario Faggioli <raistlin@linux.it> Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com> [ Added !RT_MUTEXES build fix. ] Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1383831828-15501-11-git-send-email-juri.lelli@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2013-11-07 06:43:44 -07:00
int prio;
u64 deadline;
};
/*
* Various helpers to access the waiters-tree:
*/
#ifdef CONFIG_RT_MUTEXES
static inline int rt_mutex_has_waiters(struct rt_mutex *lock)
{
return !RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&lock->waiters.rb_root);
}
static inline struct rt_mutex_waiter *
rt_mutex_top_waiter(struct rt_mutex *lock)
{
struct rt_mutex_waiter *w;
w = rb_entry(lock->waiters.rb_leftmost,
struct rt_mutex_waiter, tree_entry);
BUG_ON(w->lock != lock);
return w;
}
static inline int task_has_pi_waiters(struct task_struct *p)
{
return !RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&p->pi_waiters.rb_root);
}
static inline struct rt_mutex_waiter *
task_top_pi_waiter(struct task_struct *p)
{
return rb_entry(p->pi_waiters.rb_leftmost,
struct rt_mutex_waiter, pi_tree_entry);
}
#else
static inline int rt_mutex_has_waiters(struct rt_mutex *lock)
{
return false;
}
static inline struct rt_mutex_waiter *
rt_mutex_top_waiter(struct rt_mutex *lock)
{
return NULL;
}
static inline int task_has_pi_waiters(struct task_struct *p)
{
return false;
}
static inline struct rt_mutex_waiter *
task_top_pi_waiter(struct task_struct *p)
{
return NULL;
}
#endif
/*
* lock->owner state tracking:
*/
rtmutex: Simplify PI algorithm and make highest prio task get lock In current rtmutex, the pending owner may be boosted by the tasks in the rtmutex's waitlist when the pending owner is deboosted or a task in the waitlist is boosted. This boosting is unrelated, because the pending owner does not really take the rtmutex. It is not reasonable. Example. time1: A(high prio) onwers the rtmutex. B(mid prio) and C (low prio) in the waitlist. time2 A release the lock, B becomes the pending owner A(or other high prio task) continues to run. B's prio is lower than A, so B is just queued at the runqueue. time3 A or other high prio task sleeps, but we have passed some time The B and C's prio are changed in the period (time2 ~ time3) due to boosting or deboosting. Now C has the priority higher than B. ***Is it reasonable that C has to boost B and help B to get the rtmutex? NO!! I think, it is unrelated/unneed boosting before B really owns the rtmutex. We should give C a chance to beat B and win the rtmutex. This is the motivation of this patch. This patch *ensures* only the top waiter or higher priority task can take the lock. How? 1) we don't dequeue the top waiter when unlock, if the top waiter is changed, the old top waiter will fail and go to sleep again. 2) when requiring lock, it will get the lock when the lock is not taken and: there is no waiter OR higher priority than waiters OR it is top waiter. 3) In any time, the top waiter is changed, the top waiter will be woken up. The algorithm is much simpler than before, no pending owner, no boosting for pending owner. Other advantage of this patch: 1) The states of a rtmutex are reduced a half, easier to read the code. 2) the codes become shorter. 3) top waiter is not dequeued until it really take the lock: they will retain FIFO when it is stolen. Not advantage nor disadvantage 1) Even we may wakeup multiple waiters(any time when top waiter changed), we hardly cause "thundering herd", the number of wokenup task is likely 1 or very little. 2) two APIs are changed. rt_mutex_owner() will not return pending owner, it will return NULL when the top waiter is going to take the lock. rt_mutex_next_owner() always return the top waiter. will not return NULL if we have waiters because the top waiter is not dequeued. I have fixed the code that use these APIs. need updated after this patch is accepted 1) Document/* 2) the testcase scripts/rt-tester/t4-l2-pi-deboost.tst Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> LKML-Reference: <4D3012D5.4060709@cn.fujitsu.com> Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
2011-01-14 02:09:41 -07:00
#define RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS 1UL
static inline struct task_struct *rt_mutex_owner(struct rt_mutex *lock)
{
unsigned long owner = (unsigned long) READ_ONCE(lock->owner);
return (struct task_struct *) (owner & ~RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS);
}
/*
* Constants for rt mutex functions which have a selectable deadlock
* detection.
*
* RT_MUTEX_MIN_CHAINWALK: Stops the lock chain walk when there are
* no further PI adjustments to be made.
*
* RT_MUTEX_FULL_CHAINWALK: Invoke deadlock detection with a full
* walk of the lock chain.
*/
enum rtmutex_chainwalk {
RT_MUTEX_MIN_CHAINWALK,
RT_MUTEX_FULL_CHAINWALK,
};
/*
* PI-futex support (proxy locking functions, etc.):
*/
extern struct task_struct *rt_mutex_next_owner(struct rt_mutex *lock);
extern void rt_mutex_init_proxy_locked(struct rt_mutex *lock,
struct task_struct *proxy_owner);
extern void rt_mutex_proxy_unlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
struct task_struct *proxy_owner);
extern void rt_mutex_init_waiter(struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter);
futex: Drop hb->lock before enqueueing on the rtmutex When PREEMPT_RT_FULL does the spinlock -> rt_mutex substitution the PI chain code will (falsely) report a deadlock and BUG. The problem is that it hold hb->lock (now an rt_mutex) while doing task_blocks_on_rt_mutex on the futex's pi_state::rtmutex. This, when interleaved just right with futex_unlock_pi() leads it to believe to see an AB-BA deadlock. Task1 (holds rt_mutex, Task2 (does FUTEX_LOCK_PI) does FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI) lock hb->lock lock rt_mutex (as per start_proxy) lock hb->lock Which is a trivial AB-BA. It is not an actual deadlock, because it won't be holding hb->lock by the time it actually blocks on the rt_mutex, but the chainwalk code doesn't know that and it would be a nightmare to handle this gracefully. To avoid this problem, do the same as in futex_unlock_pi() and drop hb->lock after acquiring wait_lock. This still fully serializes against futex_unlock_pi(), since adding to the wait_list does the very same lock dance, and removing it holds both locks. Aside of solving the RT problem this makes the lock and unlock mechanism symetric and reduces the hb->lock held time. Reported-and-tested-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: juri.lelli@arm.com Cc: xlpang@redhat.com Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org Cc: mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com Cc: jdesfossez@efficios.com Cc: dvhart@infradead.org Cc: bristot@redhat.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170322104152.161341537@infradead.org Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2017-03-22 03:36:00 -07:00
extern int __rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter,
struct task_struct *task);
extern int rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter,
struct task_struct *task);
extern int rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
struct hrtimer_sleeper *to,
struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter);
extern bool rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter);
extern int rt_mutex_futex_trylock(struct rt_mutex *l);
extern void rt_mutex_futex_unlock(struct rt_mutex *lock);
extern bool __rt_mutex_futex_unlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
struct wake_q_head *wqh);
extern void rt_mutex_postunlock(struct wake_q_head *wake_q);
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES
# include "rtmutex-debug.h"
#else
# include "rtmutex.h"
#endif
#endif