mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>, Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com>,
	Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
	Terry Rudd <terry.rudd@hpe.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>,
	Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Subject: [PATCH -v4 5/8] locking/mutex: Add lock handoff to avoid starvation
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2016 16:52:48 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161007150211.196801561@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161007145243.361481786@infradead.org>

[-- Attachment #1: peterz-locking-mutex-steal.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 9153 bytes --]

Implement lock handoff to avoid lock starvation.

Lock starvation is possible because mutex_lock() allows lock stealing,
where a running (or optimistic spinning) task beats the woken waiter
to the acquire.

Lock stealing is an important performance optimization because waiting
for a waiter to wake up and get runtime can take a significant time,
during which everyboy would stall on the lock.

The down-side is of course that it allows for starvation.

This patch has the waiter requesting a handoff if it fails to acquire
the lock upon waking. This re-introduces some of the wait time,
because once we do a handoff we have to wait for the waiter to wake up
again.

A future patch will add a round of optimistic spinning to attempt to
alleviate this penalty, but if that turns out to not be enough, we can
add a counter and only request handoff after multiple failed wakeups.

There are a few tricky implementation details:

 - accepting a handoff must only be done in the wait-loop. Since the
   handoff condition is owner == current, it can easily cause
   recursive locking trouble.

 - accepting the handoff must be careful to provide the ACQUIRE
   semantics.

 - having the HANDOFF bit set on unlock requires care, we must not
   clear the owner.

 - we must be careful to not leave HANDOFF set after we've acquired
   the lock. The tricky scenario is setting the HANDOFF bit on an
   unlocked mutex.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
---
 kernel/locking/mutex.c |  142 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 119 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -54,8 +54,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__mutex_init);
  * bits to store extra state.
  *
  * Bit0 indicates a non-empty waiter list; unlock must issue a wakeup.
+ * Bit1 indicates unlock needs to hand the lock to the top-waiter
  */
 #define MUTEX_FLAG_WAITERS	0x01
+#define MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF	0x02
 
 #define MUTEX_FLAGS		0x03
 
@@ -71,20 +73,48 @@ static inline unsigned long __owner_flag
 
 /*
  * Actual trylock that will work on any unlocked state.
+ *
+ * When setting the owner field, we must preserve the low flag bits.
+ *
+ * Be careful with @handoff, only set that in a wait-loop (where you set
+ * HANDOFF) to avoid recursive lock attempts.
  */
-static inline bool __mutex_trylock(struct mutex *lock)
+static inline bool __mutex_trylock(struct mutex *lock, const bool handoff)
 {
 	unsigned long owner, curr = (unsigned long)current;
 
 	owner = atomic_long_read(&lock->owner);
 	for (;;) { /* must loop, can race against a flag */
-		unsigned long old;
+		unsigned long old, flags = __owner_flags(owner);
+
+		if (__owner_task(owner)) {
+			if (handoff && unlikely(__owner_task(owner) == current)) {
+				/*
+				 * Provide ACQUIRE semantics for the lock-handoff.
+				 *
+				 * We cannot easily use load-acquire here, since
+				 * the actual load is a failed cmpxchg, which
+				 * doesn't imply any barriers.
+				 *
+				 * Also, this is a fairly unlikely scenario, and
+				 * this contains the cost.
+				 */
+				smp_mb(); /* ACQUIRE */
+				return true;
+			}
 
-		if (__owner_task(owner))
 			return false;
+		}
 
-		old = atomic_long_cmpxchg_acquire(&lock->owner, owner,
-						  curr | __owner_flags(owner));
+		/*
+		 * We set the HANDOFF bit, we must make sure it doesn't live
+		 * past the point where we acquire it. This would be possible
+		 * if we (accidentally) set the bit on an unlocked mutex.
+		 */
+		if (handoff)
+			flags &= ~MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF;
+
+		old = atomic_long_cmpxchg_acquire(&lock->owner, owner, curr | flags);
 		if (old == owner)
 			return true;
 
@@ -134,6 +164,39 @@ static inline void __mutex_clear_flag(st
 	atomic_long_andnot(flag, &lock->owner);
 }
 
+static inline bool __mutex_waiter_is_first(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *waiter)
+{
+	return list_first_entry(&lock->wait_list, struct mutex_waiter, list) == waiter;
+}
+
+/*
+ * Give up ownership to a specific task, when @task = NULL, this is equivalent
+ * to a regular unlock. Clears HANDOFF, preserves WAITERS. Provides RELEASE
+ * semantics like a regular unlock, the __mutex_trylock() provides matching
+ * ACQUIRE semantics for the handoff.
+ */
+static void __mutex_handoff(struct mutex *lock, struct task_struct *task)
+{
+	unsigned long owner = atomic_long_read(&lock->owner);
+
+	for (;;) {
+		unsigned long old, new;
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES
+		DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(__owner_task(owner) != current);
+#endif
+
+		new = (owner & MUTEX_FLAG_WAITERS);
+		new |= (unsigned long)task;
+
+		old = atomic_long_cmpxchg_release(&lock->owner, owner, new);
+		if (old == owner)
+			break;
+
+		owner = old;
+	}
+}
+
 #ifndef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
 /*
  * We split the mutex lock/unlock logic into separate fastpath and
@@ -398,7 +461,7 @@ static bool mutex_optimistic_spin(struct
 			break;
 
 		/* Try to acquire the mutex if it is unlocked. */
-		if (__mutex_trylock(lock)) {
+		if (__mutex_trylock(lock, false)) {
 			osq_unlock(&lock->osq);
 			return true;
 		}
@@ -523,6 +586,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock,
 	struct task_struct *task = current;
 	struct mutex_waiter waiter;
 	unsigned long flags;
+	bool first = false;
 	int ret;
 
 	if (use_ww_ctx) {
@@ -534,7 +598,8 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock,
 	preempt_disable();
 	mutex_acquire_nest(&lock->dep_map, subclass, 0, nest_lock, ip);
 
-	if (__mutex_trylock(lock) || mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, use_ww_ctx)) {
+	if (__mutex_trylock(lock, false) ||
+	    mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, use_ww_ctx)) {
 		/* got the lock, yay! */
 		lock_acquired(&lock->dep_map, ip);
 		if (use_ww_ctx) {
@@ -551,7 +616,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock,
 	/*
 	 * After waiting to acquire the wait_lock, try again.
 	 */
-	if (__mutex_trylock(lock))
+	if (__mutex_trylock(lock, false))
 		goto skip_wait;
 
 	debug_mutex_lock_common(lock, &waiter);
@@ -561,13 +626,13 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock,
 	list_add_tail(&waiter.list, &lock->wait_list);
 	waiter.task = task;
 
-	if (list_first_entry(&lock->wait_list, struct mutex_waiter, list) == &waiter)
+	if (__mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, &waiter))
 		__mutex_set_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAG_WAITERS);
 
 	lock_contended(&lock->dep_map, ip);
 
 	for (;;) {
-		if (__mutex_trylock(lock))
+		if (__mutex_trylock(lock, first))
 			break;
 
 		/*
@@ -586,17 +651,20 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock,
 		}
 
 		__set_task_state(task, state);
-
-		/* didn't get the lock, go to sleep: */
 		spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
 		schedule_preempt_disabled();
 		spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
+
+		if (!first && __mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, &waiter)) {
+			first = true;
+			__mutex_set_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF);
+		}
 	}
 	__set_task_state(task, TASK_RUNNING);
 
 	mutex_remove_waiter(lock, &waiter, task);
 	if (likely(list_empty(&lock->wait_list)))
-		__mutex_clear_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAG_WAITERS);
+		__mutex_clear_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAGS);
 
 	debug_mutex_free_waiter(&waiter);
 
@@ -724,33 +792,61 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__ww_mutex_lock_interr
  */
 static noinline void __sched __mutex_unlock_slowpath(struct mutex *lock, unsigned long ip)
 {
+	struct task_struct *next = NULL;
 	unsigned long owner, flags;
 	WAKE_Q(wake_q);
 
 	mutex_release(&lock->dep_map, 1, ip);
 
 	/*
-	 * Release the lock before (potentially) taking the spinlock
-	 * such that other contenders can get on with things ASAP.
+	 * Release the lock before (potentially) taking the spinlock such that
+	 * other contenders can get on with things ASAP.
+	 *
+	 * Except when HANDOFF, in that case we must not clear the owner field,
+	 * but instead set it to the top waiter.
 	 */
-	owner = atomic_long_fetch_and_release(MUTEX_FLAGS, &lock->owner);
-	if (!__owner_flags(owner))
-		return;
+	owner = atomic_long_read(&lock->owner);
+	for (;;) {
+		unsigned long old;
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES
+		DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(__owner_task(owner) != current);
+#endif
+
+		if (owner & MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF)
+			break;
+
+		old = atomic_long_cmpxchg_release(&lock->owner, owner,
+						  __owner_flags(owner));
+		if (old == owner) {
+			if (owner & MUTEX_FLAG_WAITERS)
+				break;
+
+			return;
+		}
+
+		owner = old;
+	}
 
 	spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
 	debug_mutex_unlock(lock);
-
 	if (!list_empty(&lock->wait_list)) {
 		/* get the first entry from the wait-list: */
 		struct mutex_waiter *waiter =
-				list_entry(lock->wait_list.next,
-					   struct mutex_waiter, list);
+			list_first_entry(&lock->wait_list,
+					 struct mutex_waiter, list);
+
+		next = waiter->task;
 
 		debug_mutex_wake_waiter(lock, waiter);
-		wake_q_add(&wake_q, waiter->task);
+		wake_q_add(&wake_q, next);
 	}
 
+	if (owner & MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF)
+		__mutex_handoff(lock, next);
+
 	spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
+
 	wake_up_q(&wake_q);
 }
 
@@ -853,7 +949,7 @@ __ww_mutex_lock_interruptible_slowpath(s
  */
 int __sched mutex_trylock(struct mutex *lock)
 {
-	bool locked = __mutex_trylock(lock);
+	bool locked = __mutex_trylock(lock, false);
 
 	if (locked)
 		mutex_acquire(&lock->dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_);

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-10-07 15:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-10-07 14:52 [PATCH -v4 0/8] locking/mutex: Rewrite basic mutex Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-07 14:52 ` [PATCH -v4 1/8] locking/drm: Kill mutex trickery Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-07 15:43   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-07 15:58     ` Linus Torvalds
2016-10-07 16:13       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-07 21:58         ` Waiman Long
2016-10-08 11:58     ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-10-08 14:01       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-08 14:11         ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-10-08 16:42           ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-11-09 10:38     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-18 12:48   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-18 12:57     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-11-11 11:22       ` Daniel Vetter
2016-11-11 11:38         ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-11-12 10:58           ` Ingo Molnar
2016-11-14 14:04             ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-11-14 14:27               ` Ingo Molnar
2016-10-18 12:57     ` Chris Wilson
2016-10-07 14:52 ` [PATCH -v4 2/8] locking/mutex: Rework mutex::owner Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-12 17:59   ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-10-12 19:52     ` Jason Low
2016-10-13 15:18   ` Will Deacon
2016-10-07 14:52 ` [PATCH -v4 3/8] locking/mutex: Kill arch specific code Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-07 14:52 ` [PATCH -v4 4/8] locking/mutex: Allow MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER when DEBUG_MUTEXES Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-07 14:52 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2016-10-13 15:14   ` [PATCH -v4 5/8] locking/mutex: Add lock handoff to avoid starvation Will Deacon
2016-10-17  9:22     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-17 18:45   ` Waiman Long
2016-10-17 19:07     ` Waiman Long
2016-10-18 13:02       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-18 12:36     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-27 13:55   ` Chris Wilson
2017-01-09 11:52   ` [PATCH] locking/mutex: Clear mutex-handoff flag on interrupt Chris Wilson
2017-01-11 16:43     ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-01-11 16:57       ` Chris Wilson
2017-01-12 20:58         ` Chris Wilson
2016-10-07 14:52 ` [PATCH -v4 6/8] locking/mutex: Restructure wait loop Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-13 15:17   ` Will Deacon
2016-10-17 10:44     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-17 13:24       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-17 13:45         ` Boqun Feng
2016-10-17 15:49           ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-19 17:34     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-24  1:57       ` ciao set_task_state() (was Re: [PATCH -v4 6/8] locking/mutex: Restructure wait loop) Davidlohr Bueso
2016-10-24 13:26         ` Kent Overstreet
2016-10-24 14:27         ` Kent Overstreet
2016-10-25 16:55           ` Eric Wheeler
2016-10-25 17:45             ` Kent Overstreet
2016-10-17 23:16   ` [PATCH -v4 6/8] locking/mutex: Restructure wait loop Waiman Long
2016-10-18 13:14     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-07 14:52 ` [PATCH -v4 7/8] locking/mutex: Simplify some ww_mutex code in __mutex_lock_common() Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-07 14:52 ` [PATCH -v4 8/8] locking/mutex: Enable optimistic spinning of woken waiter Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-13 15:28   ` Will Deacon
2016-10-17  9:32     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-17 23:21   ` Waiman Long
2016-10-18 12:19     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-07 15:20 ` [PATCH -v4 0/8] locking/mutex: Rewrite basic mutex Linus Torvalds
2016-10-11 18:42 ` Jason Low

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=20161007150211.196801561@infradead.org \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=Will.Deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
    --cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=dingtianhong@huawei.com \
    --cc=imre.deak@intel.com \
    --cc=jason.low2@hp.com \
    --cc=jason.low2@hpe.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=paulmck@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=terry.rudd@hpe.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=waiman.long@hpe.com \
    /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

Powered by JetHome