By changing futex_lock_pi() to use rt_mutex_*_proxy_lock() all wait_list
modifications are done under both hb->lock and wait_lock.

This closes the obvious interleave pattern between futex_lock_pi() and
futex_unlock_pi(), but not entirely so. See below:

Before:

futex_lock_pi()			futex_unlock_pi()
  unlock hb->lock

				  lock hb->lock
				  unlock hb->lock

				  lock rt_mutex->wait_lock
				  unlock rt_mutex_wait_lock
				    -EAGAIN

  lock rt_mutex->wait_lock
  list_add
  unlock rt_mutex->wait_lock

  schedule()

  lock rt_mutex->wait_lock
  list_del
  unlock rt_mutex->wait_lock

				  <idem>
				    -EAGAIN

  lock hb->lock


After:

futex_lock_pi()			futex_unlock_pi()

  lock hb->lock
  lock rt_mutex->wait_lock
  list_add
  unlock rt_mutex->wait_lock
  unlock hb->lock

  schedule()
				  lock hb->lock
				  unlock hb->lock
  lock hb->lock
  lock rt_mutex->wait_lock
  list_del
  unlock rt_mutex->wait_lock

				  lock rt_mutex->wait_lock
				  unlock rt_mutex_wait_lock
				    -EAGAIN

  unlock hb->lock


It does however solve the earlier starvation/live-lock scenario which got
introduced with the -EAGAIN since unlike the before scenario; where the
-EAGAIN happens while futex_unlock_pi() doesn't hold any locks; in the
after scenario it happens while futex_unlock_pi() actually holds a lock,
and then it is serialized on that lock.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: juri.lelli@arm.com
Cc: bigeasy@linutronix.de
Cc: xlpang@redhat.com
Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org
Cc: mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com
Cc: jdesfossez@efficios.com
Cc: dvhart@infradead.org
Cc: bristot@redhat.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170322104152.062785528@infradead.orgSigned-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>