[PATCH 1/4] locking/ww_mutex: Fix a deadlock affecting ww_mutexes

[Nicolai HÃhnle]

From: Nicolai HÃhnle <Nicolai.Haehnle@xxxxxxx>

Fix a race condition involving 4 threads and 2 ww_mutexes as indicated in
the following example. Acquire context stamps are ordered like the thread
numbers, i.e. thread #1 should back off when it encounters a mutex locked
by thread #0 etc.

Thread #0    Thread #1    Thread #2    Thread #3
---------    ---------    ---------    ---------
                                       lock(ww)
                                       success
             lock(ww')
             success
                          lock(ww)
             lock(ww)        .
                .            .         unlock(ww) part 1
lock(ww)        .            .            .
success         .            .            .
                .            .         unlock(ww) part 2
                .         back off
lock(ww')       .
   .            .
(stuck)      (stuck)

Here, unlock(ww) part 1 is the part that sets lock->base.count to 1
(without being protected by lock->base.wait_lock), meaning that thread #0
can acquire ww in the fast path or, much more likely, the medium path
in mutex_optimistic_spin. Since lock->base.count == 0, thread #0 then
won't wake up any of the waiters in ww_mutex_set_context_fastpath.

Then, unlock(ww) part 2 wakes up _only_the_first_ waiter of ww. This is
thread #2, since waiters are added at the tail. Thread #2 wakes up and
backs off since it sees ww owned by a context with a lower stamp.

Meanwhile, thread #1 is never woken up, and so it won't back off its lock
on ww'. So thread #0 gets stuck waiting for ww' to be released.

This patch fixes the deadlock by waking up all waiters in the slow path
of ww_mutex_unlock.

We have an internal test case for amdgpu which continuously submits
command streams from tens of threads, where all command streams reference
hundreds of GPU buffer objects with a lot of overlap in the buffer lists
between command streams. This test reliably caused a deadlock, and while I
haven't completely confirmed that it is exactly the scenario outlined
above, this patch does fix the test case.

v2:
- use wake_q_add
- add additional explanations

Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reviewed-by: Christian KÃnig <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> (v1)
Signed-off-by: Nicolai HÃhnle <nicolai.haehnle@xxxxxxx>
---
 kernel/locking/mutex.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
index a70b90d..7fbf9b4 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -409,6 +409,9 @@ static bool mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock,
 __visible __used noinline
 void __sched __mutex_unlock_slowpath(atomic_t *lock_count);
 
+static __used noinline
+void __sched __mutex_unlock_slowpath_wakeall(atomic_t *lock_count);
+
 /**
  * mutex_unlock - release the mutex
  * @lock: the mutex to be released
@@ -473,7 +476,14 @@ void __sched ww_mutex_unlock(struct ww_mutex *lock)
 	 */
 	mutex_clear_owner(&lock->base);
 #endif
-	__mutex_fastpath_unlock(&lock->base.count, __mutex_unlock_slowpath);
+	/*
+	 * A previously _not_ waiting task may acquire the lock via the fast
+	 * path during our unlock. In that case, already waiting tasks may have
+	 * to back off to avoid a deadlock. Wake up all waiters so that they
+	 * can check their acquire context stamp against the new owner.
+	 */
+	__mutex_fastpath_unlock(&lock->base.count,
+				__mutex_unlock_slowpath_wakeall);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(ww_mutex_unlock);
 
@@ -716,7 +726,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__ww_mutex_lock_interruptible);
  * Release the lock, slowpath:
  */
 static inline void
-__mutex_unlock_common_slowpath(struct mutex *lock, int nested)
+__mutex_unlock_common_slowpath(struct mutex *lock, int nested, int wake_all)
 {
 	unsigned long flags;
 	WAKE_Q(wake_q);
@@ -740,7 +750,14 @@ __mutex_unlock_common_slowpath(struct mutex *lock, int nested)
 	mutex_release(&lock->dep_map, nested, _RET_IP_);
 	debug_mutex_unlock(lock);
 
-	if (!list_empty(&lock->wait_list)) {
+	if (wake_all) {
+		struct mutex_waiter *waiter;
+
+		list_for_each_entry(waiter, &lock->wait_list, list) {
+			debug_mutex_wake_waiter(lock, waiter);
+			wake_q_add(&wake_q, waiter->task);
+		}
+	} else if (!list_empty(&lock->wait_list)) {
 		/* get the first entry from the wait-list: */
 		struct mutex_waiter *waiter =
 				list_entry(lock->wait_list.next,
@@ -762,7 +779,15 @@ __mutex_unlock_slowpath(atomic_t *lock_count)
 {
 	struct mutex *lock = container_of(lock_count, struct mutex, count);
 
-	__mutex_unlock_common_slowpath(lock, 1);
+	__mutex_unlock_common_slowpath(lock, 1, 0);
+}
+
+static void
+__mutex_unlock_slowpath_wakeall(atomic_t *lock_count)
+{
+	struct mutex *lock = container_of(lock_count, struct mutex, count);
+
+	__mutex_unlock_common_slowpath(lock, 1, 1);
 }
 
 #ifndef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
-- 
2.7.4