From: Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, qiang.zhang@windriver.com
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, will@kernel.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] locking/mutex: clear MUTEX_FLAGS if wait_list is empty due to signal
Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 12:12:51 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0c7e13ef-12d0-37bf-ce43-3377249c8c33@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YKObq4li1qwyEyDa@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 5/18/21 6:49 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:40:05AM +0800, qiang.zhang@windriver.com wrote:
>> From: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@windriver.com>
>>
>> When a interruptible mutex locker is interrupted by a signal
>> without acquiring this lock and removed from the wait queue.
>> if the mutex isn't contended enough to have a waiter
>> put into the wait queue again, the setting of the WAITER
>> bit will force mutex locker to go into the slowpath to
>> acquire the lock every time, so if the wait queue is empty,
>> the WAITER bit need to be clear.
> I'm still interestd in knowing how you found this. Did you have an
> actual problem, or were you just reading the code?
>
> AFAICT, this needs:
>
> Fixes: 040a0a371005 ("mutex: Add support for wound/wait style locks")
>
>> Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@windriver.com>
> Thanks!
>
> Updated patch below.
>
> ---
> Subject: locking/mutex: clear MUTEX_FLAGS if wait_list is empty due to signal
> From: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@windriver.com>
> Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 11:40:05 +0800
>
> From: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@windriver.com>
>
> When a interruptible mutex locker is interrupted by a signal
> without acquiring this lock and removed from the wait queue.
> if the mutex isn't contended enough to have a waiter
> put into the wait queue again, the setting of the WAITER
> bit will force mutex locker to go into the slowpath to
> acquire the lock every time, so if the wait queue is empty,
> the WAITER bit need to be clear.
>
> Fixes: 040a0a371005 ("mutex: Add support for wound/wait style locks")
> Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@windriver.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210517034005.30828-1-qiang.zhang@windriver.com
> ---
> kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c | 4 ++--
> kernel/locking/mutex-debug.h | 2 +-
> kernel/locking/mutex.c | 18 +++++++++++++-----
> kernel/locking/mutex.h | 4 +---
> 4 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c
> @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ void debug_mutex_add_waiter(struct mutex
> task->blocked_on = waiter;
> }
>
> -void mutex_remove_waiter(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *waiter,
> +void debug_mutex_remove_waiter(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *waiter,
> struct task_struct *task)
> {
> DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(list_empty(&waiter->list));
> @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ void mutex_remove_waiter(struct mutex *l
> DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(task->blocked_on != waiter);
> task->blocked_on = NULL;
>
> - list_del_init(&waiter->list);
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&waiter->list);
> waiter->task = NULL;
> }
>
> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex-debug.h
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex-debug.h
> @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ extern void debug_mutex_free_waiter(stru
> extern void debug_mutex_add_waiter(struct mutex *lock,
> struct mutex_waiter *waiter,
> struct task_struct *task);
> -extern void mutex_remove_waiter(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *waiter,
> +extern void debug_mutex_remove_waiter(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *waiter,
> struct task_struct *task);
> extern void debug_mutex_unlock(struct mutex *lock);
> extern void debug_mutex_init(struct mutex *lock, const char *name,
> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ static inline bool __mutex_waiter_is_fir
> * Add @waiter to a given location in the lock wait_list and set the
> * FLAG_WAITERS flag if it's the first waiter.
> */
> -static void __sched
> +static void
> __mutex_add_waiter(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *waiter,
> struct list_head *list)
> {
> @@ -205,6 +205,16 @@ __mutex_add_waiter(struct mutex *lock, s
> __mutex_set_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAG_WAITERS);
> }
>
> +static void
> +__mutex_remove_waiter(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *waiter)
> +{
> + list_del(&waiter->list);
> + if (likely(list_empty(&lock->wait_list)))
> + __mutex_clear_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAGS);
> +
> + debug_mutex_remove_waiter(lock, waiter, current);
> +}
> +
> /*
> * Give up ownership to a specific task, when @task = NULL, this is equivalent
> * to a regular unlock. Sets PICKUP on a handoff, clears HANDOFF, preserves
> @@ -1061,9 +1071,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock,
> __ww_mutex_check_waiters(lock, ww_ctx);
> }
>
> - mutex_remove_waiter(lock, &waiter, current);
> - if (likely(list_empty(&lock->wait_list)))
> - __mutex_clear_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAGS);
> + __mutex_remove_waiter(lock, &waiter);
>
> debug_mutex_free_waiter(&waiter);
>
> @@ -1080,7 +1088,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock,
>
> err:
> __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> - mutex_remove_waiter(lock, &waiter, current);
> + __mutex_remove_waiter(lock, &waiter);
> err_early_kill:
> spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
> debug_mutex_free_waiter(&waiter);
> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.h
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.h
> @@ -10,12 +10,10 @@
> * !CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES case. Most of them are NOPs:
> */
>
> -#define mutex_remove_waiter(lock, waiter, task) \
> - __list_del((waiter)->list.prev, (waiter)->list.next)
> -
> #define debug_mutex_wake_waiter(lock, waiter) do { } while (0)
> #define debug_mutex_free_waiter(waiter) do { } while (0)
> #define debug_mutex_add_waiter(lock, waiter, ti) do { } while (0)
> +#define debug_mutex_remove_waiter(lock, waiter, ti) do { } while (0)
> #define debug_mutex_unlock(lock) do { } while (0)
> #define debug_mutex_init(lock, name, key) do { } while (0)
>
>
Reviewed-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-19 16:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-17 3:40 qiang.zhang
2021-05-18 10:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-19 1:18 ` 回复: " Zhang, Qiang
2021-05-19 16:12 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2021-05-19 8:08 ` [tip: locking/urgent] " tip-bot2 for Zqiang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0c7e13ef-12d0-37bf-ce43-3377249c8c33@redhat.com \
--to=llong@redhat.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=qiang.zhang@windriver.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®