mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Nicolai Hähnle" <nhaehnle@gmail.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 00/11] locking/ww_mutex: Keep sorted wait list to avoid stampedes
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 13:20:01 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1480335612-12069-1-git-send-email-nhaehnle@gmail.com> (raw)

It turns out that the deadlock that I found last week was already implicitly
fixed during the lock->owner redesign, by checking the WAITERS bit in the
w/w lock fast path. However, since I had already started looking into
sorting the wait list, here goes.

The basic idea is to make sure that:

1. All waiters that have a ww_ctx appear in stamp order in the wait list.
Waiters without a ww_ctx are still supported and appear in FIFO order as
before.

2. At most one of the waiters can be in a state where it has to check for
back off (i.e., ww_ctx->acquire > 0). Technically, there are short time
windows in which more than one such waiter can be on the list, but all
but the first one are running. This happens when a new waiter with
ww_ctx->acquire > 0 adds itself at the front of the list and wakes up the
previous head of the list, and of course multiple such chained cases can
be in-flight simultaneously.

Then we only ever have to wake up one task at a time. This is _not_ always
the head of the wait list, since there may be waiters without a context. But
among waiters with a context, we only ever have to wake the first one.

To achieve all this, the series adds a new field to mutex_waiter which is
only used for the w/w lock case. As a consequence, calling mutex_lock
directly on w/w locks is now definitely incorrect. That was likely the
intention previously anyway, but grepping through the source I did find one
place that had slipped through.

I've included timings taken from a contention-heavy stress test to some of
the patches. The stress test performs actual GPU operations which take a
good chunk of the wall time, but even so, the series still manages to
improve the wall time quite a bit.

Cheers,
Nicolai

             reply	other threads:[~2016-11-28 12:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-11-28 12:20 Nicolai Hähnle [this message]
2016-11-28 12:20 ` [PATCH 01/11] drm/vgem: Use ww_mutex_(un)lock even with a NULL context Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-28 12:42   ` Maarten Lankhorst
2016-11-28 12:50     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-11-28 12:58   ` Christian König
2016-11-28 12:20 ` [PATCH 02/11] locking/ww_mutex: Re-check ww->ctx in the inner optimistic spin loop Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-28 12:20 ` [PATCH 03/11] locking/ww_mutex: Extract stamp comparison to __ww_mutex_stamp_after Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-28 12:20 ` [PATCH 04/11] locking/ww_mutex: Set use_ww_ctx even when locking without a context Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-28 12:20 ` [PATCH 05/11] locking/ww_mutex: Add waiters in stamp order Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-30 14:10   ` Chris Wilson
2016-11-28 12:20 ` [PATCH 06/11] locking/ww_mutex: Notify waiters that have to back off while adding tasks to wait list Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-28 12:20 ` [PATCH 07/11] locking/ww_mutex: Wake at most one waiter for back off when acquiring the lock Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-28 12:20 ` [PATCH 08/11] locking/ww_mutex: Yield to other waiters from optimistic spin Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-28 12:20 ` [PATCH 09/11] locking/mutex: Initialize mutex_waiter::ww_ctx with poison when debugging Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-28 12:20 ` [PATCH 10/11] Documentation/locking/ww_mutex: Update the design document Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-28 12:20 ` [PATCH 11/11] [rfc] locking/ww_mutex: Always spin optimistically for the first waiter Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-30  0:35 ` [PATCH 1/4] locking: Begin kselftests for ww_mutex Chris Wilson
2016-11-30  0:35   ` [PATCH 2/4] locking: Add kselftests for ww_mutex AA deadlock detection Chris Wilson
2016-11-30  0:35   ` [PATCH 3/4] locking: Add kselftests for ww_mutex ABBA " Chris Wilson
2016-11-30  0:35   ` [PATCH 4/4] locking: Add kselftests for ww_mutex stress Chris Wilson
2016-11-30 12:29     ` Maarten Lankhorst
2016-11-30 12:52       ` Chris Wilson
2016-11-30  8:00   ` [PATCH 1/4] locking: Begin kselftests for ww_mutex Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-30 19:08   ` kbuild test robot
2016-11-30  9:40 ` [PATCH 00/11] locking/ww_mutex: Keep sorted wait list to avoid stampedes Chris Wilson
2016-11-30 11:52   ` Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-30 12:20     ` Chris Wilson
2016-11-30 13:40       ` Nicolai Hähnle

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=1480335612-12069-1-git-send-email-nhaehnle@gmail.com \
    --to=nhaehnle@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.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®