From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, john.p.donnelly@oracle.com,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2] locking/rwsem: Allow slowpath writer to ignore handoff bit if not set by first waiter
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 16:04:19 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220622200419.778799-1-longman@redhat.com> (raw)
With commit d257cc8cb8d5 ("locking/rwsem: Make handoff bit handling more
consistent"), the writer that sets the handoff bit can be interrupted
out without clearing the bit if the wait queue isn't empty. This disables
reader and writer optimistic lock spinning and stealing.
Now if a non-first writer in the queue is somehow woken up or a new
waiter enters the slowpath, it can't acquire the lock. This is not the
case before commit d257cc8cb8d5 as the writer that set the handoff bit
will clear it when exiting out via the out_nolock path. This is less
efficient as the busy rwsem stays in an unlock state for a longer time.
In some cases, this new behavior may cause lockups as shown in [1] and
[2].
This patch allows a non-first writer to ignore the handoff bit if it
is not originally set or initiated by the first waiter. This patch is
shown to be effective in fixing the lockup problem reported in [1].
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220617134325.GC30825@techsingularity.net/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/3f02975c-1a9d-be20-32cf-f1d8e3dfafcc@oracle.com/
Fixes: d257cc8cb8d5 ("locking/rwsem: Make handoff bit handling more consistent")
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
---
kernel/locking/rwsem.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
index 9d1db4a54d34..ffd6188d4a7c 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
@@ -335,8 +335,6 @@ struct rwsem_waiter {
struct task_struct *task;
enum rwsem_waiter_type type;
unsigned long timeout;
-
- /* Writer only, not initialized in reader */
bool handoff_set;
};
#define rwsem_first_waiter(sem) \
@@ -459,10 +457,12 @@ static void rwsem_mark_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
* to give up the lock), request a HANDOFF to
* force the issue.
*/
- if (!(oldcount & RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF) &&
- time_after(jiffies, waiter->timeout)) {
- adjustment -= RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF;
- lockevent_inc(rwsem_rlock_handoff);
+ if (time_after(jiffies, waiter->timeout)) {
+ if (!(oldcount & RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF)) {
+ adjustment -= RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF;
+ lockevent_inc(rwsem_rlock_handoff);
+ }
+ waiter->handoff_set = true;
}
atomic_long_add(-adjustment, &sem->count);
@@ -599,7 +599,7 @@ rwsem_del_wake_waiter(struct rw_semaphore *sem, struct rwsem_waiter *waiter,
static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
struct rwsem_waiter *waiter)
{
- bool first = rwsem_first_waiter(sem) == waiter;
+ struct rwsem_waiter *first = rwsem_first_waiter(sem);
long count, new;
lockdep_assert_held(&sem->wait_lock);
@@ -609,11 +609,20 @@ static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
bool has_handoff = !!(count & RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF);
if (has_handoff) {
- if (!first)
+ /*
+ * Honor handoff bit and yield only when the first
+ * waiter is the one that set it. Otherwisee, we
+ * still try to acquire the rwsem.
+ */
+ if (first->handoff_set && (waiter != first))
return false;
- /* First waiter inherits a previously set handoff bit */
- waiter->handoff_set = true;
+ /*
+ * First waiter can inherit a previously set handoff
+ * bit and spin on rwsem if lock acquisition fails.
+ */
+ if (waiter == first)
+ waiter->handoff_set = true;
}
new = count;
@@ -1027,6 +1036,7 @@ rwsem_down_read_slowpath(struct rw_semaphore *sem, long count, unsigned int stat
waiter.task = current;
waiter.type = RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_READ;
waiter.timeout = jiffies + RWSEM_WAIT_TIMEOUT;
+ waiter.handoff_set = false;
raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
if (list_empty(&sem->wait_list)) {
--
2.31.1
next reply other threads:[~2022-06-22 20:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-22 20:04 Waiman Long [this message]
2022-06-23 13:35 ` john.p.donnelly
2022-07-01 14:37 ` john.p.donnelly
2022-07-22 12:09 ` john.p.donnelly
2022-07-30 9:35 ` [tip: locking/urgent] " tip-bot2 for Waiman Long
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=20220622200419.778799-1-longman@redhat.com \
--to=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=hdanton@sina.com \
--cc=john.p.donnelly@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--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®