Re: [PATCH 4/5] futex: Avoid taking hb lock if nothing to wakeup

[Darren Hart]

On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 19:19 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 17:25 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > In futex_wake() there is clearly no point in taking the hb->lock if
> > > we know beforehand that there are no tasks to be woken. This comes
> > > at the smaller cost of doing some atomic operations to keep track of
> > > the list's size.
> > 
> > Hmm. Why? Afaik, you only care about "empty or not". And if you don't
> > need the serialization from locking, then afaik you can just do a
> > "plist_head_empty()" without holding the lock.
> 
> I remember this being the original approach, but after noticing some
> strange behavior we quickly decided it wasn't the path. And sure enough,
> I just double checked and tried the patch without atomic ops and can see
> things being off: one of the futextest performance cases is stuck
> blocked on a futex and I couldn't reboot the machine either -- nothing
> apparent in dmesg, just not 100% functional. The thing is, we can only
> avoid taking the lock only if nobody else is trying to add itself to the
> list.

In your usage, the worst case scenario is that you detect 0 when locking
may have blocked and found a waiter. Correct?

In this case, you return 0, instead of 1 (or more).

This suggests to me a bug in the futextest testcase. Which test
specifically hung up waiting?

Futex hangs are almost always bad userspace code (my bad userspace code
in this case ;-)

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/