mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, peterz@infradead.org,
	mingo@kernel.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
	paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/13] locking/qspinlock: Remove unbounded cmpxchg loop from locking slowpath
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 15:53:16 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6e6989d0-a6b1-e6fb-4f70-ab6849b715da@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1523469680-17699-5-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com>

On 04/11/2018 02:01 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> The qspinlock locking slowpath utilises a "pending" bit as a simple form
> of an embedded test-and-set lock that can avoid the overhead of explicit
> queuing in cases where the lock is held but uncontended. This bit is
> managed using a cmpxchg loop which tries to transition the uncontended
> lock word from (0,0,0) -> (0,0,1) or (0,0,1) -> (0,1,1).
>
> Unfortunately, the cmpxchg loop is unbounded and lockers can be starved
> indefinitely if the lock word is seen to oscillate between unlocked
> (0,0,0) and locked (0,0,1). This could happen if concurrent lockers are
> able to take the lock in the cmpxchg loop without queuing and pass it
> around amongst themselves.
>
> This patch fixes the problem by unconditionally setting _Q_PENDING_VAL
> using atomic_fetch_or, and then inspecting the old value to see whether
> we need to spin on the current lock owner, or whether we now effectively
> hold the lock. The tricky scenario is when concurrent lockers end up
> queuing on the lock and the lock becomes available, causing us to see
> a lockword of (n,0,0). With pending now set, simply queuing could lead
> to deadlock as the head of the queue may not have observed the pending
> flag being cleared. Conversely, if the head of the queue did observe
> pending being cleared, then it could transition the lock from (n,0,0) ->
> (0,0,1) meaning that any attempt to "undo" our setting of the pending
> bit could race with a concurrent locker trying to set it.
>
> We handle this race by preserving the pending bit when taking the lock
> after reaching the head of the queue and leaving the tail entry intact
> if we saw pending set, because we know that the tail is going to be
> updated shortly.
>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> ---
>  kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 102 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>  1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
> index 396701e8c62d..a8fc402b3f3a 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
> @@ -162,6 +162,17 @@ struct __qspinlock {
>  
>  #if _Q_PENDING_BITS == 8
>  /**
> + * clear_pending - clear the pending bit.
> + * @lock: Pointer to queued spinlock structure
> + *
> + * *,1,* -> *,0,*
> + */
> +static __always_inline void clear_pending(struct qspinlock *lock)
> +{
> +	WRITE_ONCE(lock->pending, 0);
> +}
> +
> +/**
>   * clear_pending_set_locked - take ownership and clear the pending bit.
>   * @lock: Pointer to queued spinlock structure
>   *
> @@ -201,6 +212,17 @@ static __always_inline u32 xchg_tail(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 tail)
>  #else /* _Q_PENDING_BITS == 8 */
>  
>  /**
> + * clear_pending - clear the pending bit.
> + * @lock: Pointer to queued spinlock structure
> + *
> + * *,1,* -> *,0,*
> + */
> +static __always_inline void clear_pending(struct qspinlock *lock)
> +{
> +	atomic_andnot(_Q_PENDING_VAL, &lock->val);
> +}
> +
> +/**
>   * clear_pending_set_locked - take ownership and clear the pending bit.
>   * @lock: Pointer to queued spinlock structure
>   *

BTW, there is a similar clear_pending() function in
qspinlock_paravirt.c. I think you need to remove that with this patch.

Cheers,
Longman

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-04-11 19:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-04-11 18:01 [PATCH v2 00/13] kernel/locking: qspinlock improvements Will Deacon
2018-04-11 18:01 ` [PATCH v2 01/13] barriers: Introduce smp_cond_load_relaxed and atomic_cond_read_relaxed Will Deacon
2018-04-11 18:01 ` [PATCH v2 02/13] locking/qspinlock: Bound spinning on pending->locked transition in slowpath Will Deacon
2018-04-11 18:01 ` [PATCH v2 03/13] locking/qspinlock/x86: Increase _Q_PENDING_LOOPS upper bound Will Deacon
2018-04-11 18:01 ` [PATCH v2 04/13] locking/qspinlock: Remove unbounded cmpxchg loop from locking slowpath Will Deacon
2018-04-11 19:34   ` Waiman Long
2018-04-11 20:35     ` Waiman Long
2018-04-11 19:53   ` Waiman Long [this message]
2018-04-12 14:06     ` Will Deacon
2018-04-12 14:16       ` Waiman Long
2018-04-12 14:18         ` Will Deacon
2018-04-11 18:01 ` [PATCH v2 05/13] locking/qspinlock: Kill cmpxchg loop when claiming lock from head of queue Will Deacon
2018-04-11 18:01 ` [PATCH v2 06/13] locking/qspinlock: Use atomic_cond_read_acquire Will Deacon
2018-04-11 18:01 ` [PATCH v2 07/13] locking/mcs: Use smp_cond_load_acquire() in mcs spin loop Will Deacon
2018-04-11 18:01 ` [PATCH v2 08/13] locking/qspinlock: Use smp_cond_load_relaxed to wait for next node Will Deacon
2018-04-11 18:01 ` [PATCH v2 09/13] locking/qspinlock: Merge struct __qspinlock into struct qspinlock Will Deacon
2018-04-11 19:13   ` Waiman Long
2018-04-11 18:01 ` [PATCH v2 10/13] locking/qspinlock: Make queued_spin_unlock use smp_store_release Will Deacon
2018-04-11 18:01 ` [PATCH v2 11/13] locking/qspinlock: Elide back-to-back RELEASE operations with smp_wmb() Will Deacon
2018-04-11 18:01 ` [PATCH v2 12/13] locking/qspinlock: Use try_cmpxchg instead of cmpxchg when locking Will Deacon
2018-04-11 18:01 ` [PATCH v2 13/13] locking/qspinlock: Add stat tracking for pending vs slowpath Will Deacon
2018-04-13  9:24 ` [PATCH v2 00/13] kernel/locking: qspinlock improvements Catalin Marinas

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=6e6989d0-a6b1-e6fb-4f70-ab6849b715da@redhat.com \
    --to=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®