Commit c28d62cf authored by Peter Zijlstra's avatar Peter Zijlstra Committed by Thomas Gleixner

locking/rtmutex: Handle non enqueued waiters gracefully in remove_waiter()

In -RT task_blocks_on_rt_mutex() may return with -EAGAIN due to
(->pi_blocked_on == PI_WAKEUP_INPROGRESS) before it added itself as a
waiter. In such a case remove_waiter() must not be called because without a
waiter it will trigger the BUG_ON() statement.

This was initially reported by Yimin Deng. Thomas Gleixner fixed it then
with an explicit check for waiters before calling remove_waiter().

Instead of an explicit NULL check before calling rt_mutex_top_waiter() make
the function return NULL if there are no waiters. With that fixed the now
pointless NULL check is removed from rt_mutex_slowlock().
Reported-and-debugged-by: default avatarYimin Deng <>
Suggested-by: default avatarThomas Gleixner <>
Signed-off-by: default avatarPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <>
Signed-off-by: default avatarSebastian Andrzej Siewior <>
Signed-off-by: default avatarThomas Gleixner <>
parent ac605bee
......@@ -1268,8 +1268,7 @@ rt_mutex_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *lock, int state,
if (unlikely(ret)) {
if (rt_mutex_has_waiters(lock))
remove_waiter(lock, &waiter);
remove_waiter(lock, &waiter);
rt_mutex_handle_deadlock(ret, chwalk, &waiter);
......@@ -52,12 +52,13 @@ static inline int rt_mutex_has_waiters(struct rt_mutex *lock)
static inline struct rt_mutex_waiter *
rt_mutex_top_waiter(struct rt_mutex *lock)
struct rt_mutex_waiter *w;
w = rb_entry(lock->waiters.rb_leftmost,
struct rt_mutex_waiter, tree_entry);
BUG_ON(w->lock != lock);
struct rb_node *leftmost = rb_first_cached(&lock->waiters);
struct rt_mutex_waiter *w = NULL;
if (leftmost) {
w = rb_entry(leftmost, struct rt_mutex_waiter, tree_entry);
BUG_ON(w->lock != lock);
return w;
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment