Question on mutex code

[Matthias Bonne]

On 03/15/15 03:09, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-03-14 at 18:03 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> Good analysis, but not quite accurate for one simple fact: mutex
>> trylocks _only_ use fastpaths (obviously just depend on the counter
>> cmpxchg to 0), so you never fallback to the slowpath you are mentioning,
>> thus the race is non existent. Please see the arch code.
>
> For debug we use the trylock slowpath, but so does everything else, so
> again you cannot hit this scenario.
>
>

You are correct of course - this is why I said that
CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES must be enabled for this to happen. Can you
explain why this scenario is still not possible in the debug case?

The debug case uses mutex-null.h, which contains these macros:

#define __mutex_fastpath_lock(count, fail_fn)           fail_fn(count)
#define __mutex_fastpath_lock_retval(count)             (-1)
#define __mutex_fastpath_unlock(count, fail_fn)         fail_fn(count)
#define __mutex_fastpath_trylock(count, fail_fn)        fail_fn(count)
#define __mutex_slowpath_needs_to_unlock()              1

So both mutex_trylock() and mutex_unlock() always use the slow paths.
The slowpath for mutex_unlock() is __mutex_unlock_slowpath(), which
simply calls __mutex_unlock_common_slowpath(), and the latter starts
like this:

         /*
          * As a performance measurement, release the lock before doing 
other
          * wakeup related duties to follow. This allows other tasks to 
acquire
          * the lock sooner, while still handling cleanups in past 
unlock calls.
          * This can be done as we do not enforce strict equivalence 
between the
          * mutex counter and wait_list.
          *
          *
          * Some architectures leave the lock unlocked in the fastpath 
failure
          * case, others need to leave it locked. In the later case we 
have to
          * unlock it here - as the lock counter is currently 0 or negative.
          */
         if (__mutex_slowpath_needs_to_unlock())
                 atomic_set(&lock->count, 1);

         spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
         [...]

So the counter is set to 1 before taking the spinlock, which I think
might cause the race. Did I miss something?