01 Oct, 2007
1 commit
-
Calling handle_futex_death in exit_robust_list for the different robust
mutexes of a thread basically frees the mutex. Another thread might grab
the lock immediately which updates the next pointer of the mutex.
fetch_robust_entry over the next pointer might therefore branch into the
robust mutex list of a different thread. This can cause two problems: 1)
some mutexes held by the dead thread are not getting freed and 2) some
mutexs held by a different thread are freed.The next point need to be read before calling handle_futex_death.
Signed-off-by: Martin Schwidefsky
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar
Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds
12 Sep, 2007
1 commit
-
The futex list traversal on the compat side appears to have
a bug.It's loop termination condition compares:
while (compat_ptr(uentry) != &head->list)
But that can't be right because "uentry" has the special
"pi" indicator bit still potentially set at bit 0. This
is cleared by fetch_robust_entry() into the "entry"
return value.What this seems to mean is that the list won't terminate
when list iteration gets back to the the head. And we'll
also process the list head like a normal entry, which could
cause all kinds of problems.So we should check for equality with "entry". That pointer
is of the non-compat type so we have to do a little casting
to keep the compiler and sparse happy.The same problem can in theory occur with the 'pending'
variable, although that has not been reported from users
so far.Based on the original patch from David Miller.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: David Miller
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann
Cc:
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds
19 Jun, 2007
1 commit
-
This reverts commit d0aa7a70bf03b9de9e995ab272293be1f7937822.
It not only introduced user space visible changes to the futex syscall,
it is also non-functional and there is no way to fix it proper before
the 2.6.22 release.The breakage report ( http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/12/17 ) went
unanswered, and unfortunately it turned out that the concept is not
feasible at all. It violates the rtmutex semantics badly by introducing
a virtual owner, which hacks around the coupling of the user-space
pi_futex and the kernel internal rt_mutex representation.At the moment the only safe option is to remove it fully as it contains
user-space visible changes to broken kernel code, which we do not want
to expose in the 2.6.22 release.The patch reverts the original patch mostly 1:1, but contains a couple
of trivial manual cleanups which were necessary due to patches, which
touched the same area of code later.Verified against the glibc tests and my own PI futex tests.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar
Acked-by: Ulrich Drepper
Cc: Pierre Peiffer
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds
01 Jun, 2007
1 commit
-
When the private futex support was added the compat code wasn't changed.
The result is that code using compat code which fail, e.g., because the
timeout values are not correctly passed. The following patch should fix
that.Signed-off-by: Ulrich Drepper
Cc: Eric Dumazet
Cc: Ingo Molnar
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds
10 May, 2007
2 commits
-
This patch provides the futex_requeue_pi functionality, which allows some
threads waiting on a normal futex to be requeued on the wait-queue of a
PI-futex.This provides an optimization, already used for (normal) futexes, to be used
with the PI-futexes.This optimization is currently used by the glibc in pthread_broadcast, when
using "normal" mutexes. With futex_requeue_pi, it can be used with
PRIO_INHERIT mutexes too.Signed-off-by: Pierre Peiffer
Cc: Ingo Molnar
Cc: Ulrich Drepper
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds -
This patch modifies futex_wait() to use an hrtimer + schedule() in place of
schedule_timeout().schedule_timeout() is tick based, therefore the timeout granularity is the
tick (1 ms, 4 ms or 10 ms depending on HZ). By using a high resolution timer
for timeout wakeup, we can attain a much finer timeout granularity (in the
microsecond range). This parallels what is already done for futex_lock_pi().The timeout passed to the syscall is no longer converted to jiffies and is
therefore passed to do_futex() and futex_wait() as an absolute ktime_t
therefore keeping nanosecond resolution.Also this removes the need to pass the nanoseconds timeout part to
futex_lock_pi() in val2.In futex_wait(), if there is no timeout then a regular schedule() is
performed. Otherwise, an hrtimer is fired before schedule() is called.[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix `make headers_check']
Signed-off-by: Sebastien Dugue
Signed-off-by: Pierre Peiffer
Cc: Ingo Molnar
Cc: Ulrich Drepper
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds
11 Oct, 2006
1 commit
-
Signed-off-by: Al Viro
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds
06 Aug, 2006
1 commit
-
The recent fixups in futex.c need to be applied to futex_compat.c too. Fixes
a hang reported by Olaf.Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Olaf Hering
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds
29 Jul, 2006
1 commit
-
Fix robust PI-futexes to be properly unlocked on unexpected exit.
For this to work the kernel has to know whether a futex is a PI or a
non-PI one, because the semantics are different. Since the space in
relevant glibc data structures is extremely scarce, the best solution is
to encode the 'PI' information in bit 0 of the robust list pointer.
Existing (non-PI) glibc robust futexes have this bit always zero, so the
ABI is kept. New glibc with PI-robust-futexes will set this bit.Further fixes from Thomas Gleixner
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar
Signed-off-by: Ulrich Drepper
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds
28 Jun, 2006
2 commits
-
This adds the actual pi-futex implementation, based on rt-mutexes.
[dino@in.ibm.com: fix an oops-causing race]
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven
Signed-off-by: Dinakar Guniguntala
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds -
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.The longer reply:
-----------------Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.Implementation:
---------------As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PIIf the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.glibc support:
--------------Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven
Cc: Ulrich Drepper
Cc: Jakub Jelinek
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds
01 Apr, 2006
1 commit
-
The futex timeval is not checked for correctness. The change does not
break existing applications as the timeval is supplied by glibc (and glibc
always passes a correct value), but the glibc-internal tests for this
functionality fail.Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds
29 Mar, 2006
1 commit
-
kernel/futex_compat.c: In function `compat_sys_futex':
kernel/futex_compat.c:140: warning: passing arg 1 of `do_futex' makes integer from pointer without a cast
kernel/futex_compat.c:140: warning: passing arg 5 of `do_futex' makes integer from pointer without a castNot sure what Ingo was thinking of here. Put the casts back in.
Cc: Ingo Molnar
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds
28 Mar, 2006
2 commits
-
- fix: initialize the robust list(s) to NULL in copy_process.
- doc update
- cleanup: rename _inuser to _inatomic
- __user cleanups and other small cleanups
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Arjan van de Ven
Cc: Ulrich Drepper
Cc: Andi Kleen
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds -
32-bit syscall compatibility support. (This patch also moves all futex
related compat functionality into kernel/futex_compat.c.)Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven
Acked-by: Ulrich Drepper
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds