Re: [PATCH v3] lock/semaphore: Avoid an unnecessary deadlock within up()
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Wed Feb 17 2016 - 05:41:00 EST
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 06:11:51PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> change from v2 to v3
> - the way to solve it in v2 is racy, so I changed the approach entirely.
> - just make semaphore's trylock use spinlock's trylock.
>
> change from v1 to v2
> - remove unnecessary overhead by the redundant spin(un)lock.
>
> Since I faced a infinite recursive printk() bug, I've tried to propose
> patches the title of which is "lib/spinlock_debug.c: prevent a recursive
> cycle in the debug code". But I noticed the root problem cannot be fixed
> by that, through some discussion thanks to Sergey and Peter. So I focused
> on preventing the deadlock.
>
> -----8<-----
> From 43e029ca920890ac644e30d873be69cf5d01efdb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:22:18 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH v3] lock/semaphore: Avoid an unnecessary deadlock within up()
>
> One of semaphore acquisition functions, down_trylock() is implemented
> using raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock) even though it's enough to use
> raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(). Furthermore, using raw_spin_lock_irqsave()
> can cause a unnecessary deadlock as described below. Just make it use
> the spinlock trylock to implement the semaphore trylock so that we can
> avoid the unnecessary deadlock happened.
>
> The scenario the bad thing can happen is,
>
> printk
> console_trylock
> console_unlock
> up_console_sem
> up
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags)
> __up
> wake_up_process
> try_to_wake_up
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock)
> __spin_lock_debug
> spin_dump
> printk
> console_trylock
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags)
> >>> DEADLOCK <<<
>
> Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@xxxxxxx>
Mucking with the semaphore implementation just because printk() is
terminally broken shite really doesn't fly.