From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752856AbcGOIrk (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 15 Jul 2016 04:47:40 -0400
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:47194 "EHLO
	merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750996AbcGOIrh (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 15 Jul 2016 04:47:37 -0400
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:47:32 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hpe.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Pan Xinhui <xinhui@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hpe.com>,
        Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hpe.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] locking/pvqspinlock: Fix missed PV wakeup problem
Message-ID: <20160715084732.GF30921@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1464713631-1066-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com>
 <1464713631-1066-3-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1464713631-1066-3-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


So the reason I never get around to this is because the patch stinks.

It simply doesn't make sense... Remember, the harder you make a reviewer
work the less likely the review will be done.

Present things in clear concise language and draw a picture.

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:53:48PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> Currently, calling pv_hash() and setting _Q_SLOW_VAL is only
> done once for any pv_node. It is either in pv_kick_node() or in
> pv_wait_head_or_lock().

So far so good....

> Because of lock stealing, a pv_kick'ed node is
> not guaranteed to get the lock before the spinning threshold expires
> and has to call pv_wait() again. As a result, the new lock holder
> won't see _Q_SLOW_VAL and so won't wake up the sleeping vCPU.

*brain melts* what!? pv_kick'ed node reads like pv_kick_node() and that
doesn't make any kind of sense.

I'm thinking you're trying to say this:


CPU0			CPU1			CPU2

__pv_queued_spin_unlock_slowpath()
  ...
  smp_store_release(&l->locked, 0);
			__pv_queued_spin_lock_slowpath()
			  ...
			  pv_queued_spin_steal_lock()
			    cmpxchg(&l->locked, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) == 0


						pv_wait_head_or_lock()

  pv_kick(node->cpu);  ---------------------->	  pv_wait(&l->locked, _Q_SLOW_VAL);

			__pv_queued_spin_unlock()
			  cmpxchg(&l->locked, _Q_LOCKED_VAL, 0) == _Q_LOCKED_VAL

						  for () {
						    trylock_clear_pending();
						    cpu_relax();
						  }

						  pv_wait(&l->locked, _Q_SLOW_VAL);


Which is indeed 'bad', but not fatal, note that the later pv_wait() will
not in fact go wait, since l->locked will _not_ be _Q_SLOW_VAL.

Is this indeed the 3 CPU scenario you tried to describe in a scant 4
lines of text, or is there more to it?