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 S1752336AbcHIKtK (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 9 Aug 2016 06:49:10 -0400
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:58358 "EHLO
	merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750798AbcHIKtJ (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 9 Aug 2016 06:49:09 -0400
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 12:49:02 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hpe.com>, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v4] locking/pvqspinlock: Fix double hash race
Message-ID: <20160809104902.GH30192@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1470735467-4370-1-git-send-email-wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1470735467-4370-1-git-send-email-wanpeng.li@hotmail.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

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 05:37:47PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> From: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
> 
> When the lock holder vCPU is racing with the queue head vCPU:
> 
> lock holder vCPU             queue head vCPU
> =====================        ==================
> 
> node->locked = 1;
> <preemption>                 READ_ONCE(node->locked)
>    ...                       pv_wait_head_or_lock():
>                                SPIN_THRESHOLD loop;
>                                pv_hash();
>                                lock->locked = _Q_SLOW_VAL;
>                                node->state  = vcpu_hashed;
> pv_kick_node():
>   cmpxchg(node->state,
>      vcpu_halted, vcpu_hashed);
>   lock->locked = _Q_SLOW_VAL;
>   pv_hash();

So here the example is 'wrong' in that it doesn't illustrate the fail
case, namely having vcpu_halted win while we're hashed.

> +++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
> @@ -450,7 +450,28 @@ pv_wait_head_or_lock(struct qspinlock *lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
>  				goto gotlock;
>  			}
>  		}
> -		WRITE_ONCE(pn->state, vcpu_halted);
> +		/*
> +		 * lock holder vCPU             queue head vCPU
> +		 * ----------------             ---------------
> +		 * node->locked = 1;
> +		 * <preemption>                 READ_ONCE(node->locked)
> +		 *    ...                       pv_wait_head_or_lock():
> +		 *                                SPIN_THRESHOLD loop;
> +		 *                                pv_hash();
> +		 *                                lock->locked = _Q_SLOW_VAL;
> +		 *                                node->state  = vcpu_hashed;
> +		 * pv_kick_node():
> +		 *   cmpxchg(node->state,
> +		 *      vcpu_halted, vcpu_hashed);
> +		 *   lock->locked = _Q_SLOW_VAL;
> +		 *   pv_hash();
> +		 *
> +		 * With preemption at the right moment, it is possible that both the
> +		 * lock holder and queue head vCPUs can be racing to set node->state.
> +		 * Making sure the state is never set to vcpu_halted will prevent this
> +		 * racing from happening.
> +		 */
> +		WRITE_ONCE(pn->state, vcpu_hashed);
>  		qstat_inc(qstat_pv_wait_head, true);
>  		qstat_inc(qstat_pv_wait_again, waitcnt);
>  		pv_wait(&l->locked, _Q_SLOW_VAL);

And I completely fail to see the point of this comment, still.

Yes, if we would have used vcpu_halted, there would be a problem, but we
don't so there isn't. What does this comment tell us about the current
code?

In any case, I have an older version (possibly v1) queued up. That fixes
the bug.