Re: [PATCH v11 1/7] locking/mutex: Remove wakeups from under mutex::wait_lock

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 11:11:51PM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:

> > @@ -681,6 +682,11 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, unsigned int state, unsigned int subclas
> >   		}
> >   		raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
> > +		/* Make sure we do wakeups before calling schedule */
> > +		if (!wake_q_empty(&wake_q)) {
> 
> nit.
> 
> This checks seems unnecessary (to my untrained eye). Any harm in
> skipping it and simply doing a wake_up_q() followed by wake_q_init()
> unconditionally?

Yeah, that doesn't really save anything.

> > +			wake_up_q(&wake_q);
> > +			wake_q_init(&wake_q);
> > +		}
> >   		schedule_preempt_disabled();
> >   		first = __mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, &waiter);

> > @@ -1207,6 +1209,7 @@ static int __sched task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struct rt_mutex_base *lock,
> >   	struct rt_mutex_waiter *top_waiter = waiter;
> >   	struct rt_mutex_base *next_lock;
> >   	int chain_walk = 0, res;
> > +	DEFINE_WAKE_Q(wake_q);
> >   	lockdep_assert_held(&lock->wait_lock);
> > @@ -1245,7 +1248,10 @@ static int __sched task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struct rt_mutex_base *lock,
> >   		/* Check whether the waiter should back out immediately */
> >   		rtm = container_of(lock, struct rt_mutex, rtmutex);
> > -		res = __ww_mutex_add_waiter(waiter, rtm, ww_ctx);
> > +		preempt_disable();
> > +		res = __ww_mutex_add_waiter(waiter, rtm, ww_ctx, &wake_q);
> > +		wake_up_q(&wake_q);
> > +		preempt_enable();
> 
> I'm trying to understand this - we enter task_blocks_on_rt_mutex() with
> "wait_lock" held (I believe the lockdep_assert_held() in the previous
> hunk checks for the same). I walked down the call chain (although
> briefly) and could only spot "task->pi_lock" being locked and unlocked
> before this call to "wake_up_q()" but the "wait_lock" seems to be held
> throughout, only being unlocked and locked again for
> "rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain()" later down.
> 
> Did I miss something or is disabling preemption for this specific hunk
> enough to enable safe nesting?

So the whole ww-mutex stuff got significantly reworked since this patch
was started, but I think you're right, this wake_up_q() needs to be
outside wait_lock, while currently it sits inside.

One thing that helps though, is that I think that when
__ww_mutex_add_waiter() return !0, the wake_q should be empty here.