From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: John Donnelly <john.p.donnelly@oracle.com>,
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, Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>,
Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@quicinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/rwsem: Prevent non-first waiter from spinning in down_write() slowpath
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 21:09:58 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <998fd708-df53-7141-182e-6cbc02cd7819@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f2778291-38a8-457f-d61e-0f9f7d401075@oracle.com>
On 9/29/22 17:15, John Donnelly wrote:
> On 9/29/22 13:04, Waiman Long wrote:
>> A non-first waiter can potentially spin in the for loop of
>> rwsem_down_write_slowpath() without sleeping but fail to acquire the
>> lock even if the rwsem is free if the following sequence happens:
>>
>> Non-first waiter First waiter Lock holder
>> ---------------- ------------ -----------
>> Acquire wait_lock
>> rwsem_try_write_lock():
>> Set handoff bit if RT or
>> wait too long
>> Set waiter->handoff_set
>> Release wait_lock
>> Acquire wait_lock
>> Inherit waiter->handoff_set
>> Release wait_lock
>> Clear owner
>> Release lock
>> if (waiter.handoff_set) {
>> rwsem_spin_on_owner(();
>> if (OWNER_NULL)
>> goto trylock_again;
>> }
>> trylock_again:
>> Acquire wait_lock
>> rwsem_try_write_lock():
>> if (first->handoff_set && (waiter != first))
>> return false;
>> Release wait_lock
>>
>> It is especially problematic if the non-first waiter is an RT task and
>> it is running on the same CPU as the first waiter as this can lead to
>> live lock.
>>
>> Fixes: d257cc8cb8d5 ("locking/rwsem: Make handoff bit handling more
>> consistent")
>> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/locking/rwsem.c | 13 ++++++++++---
>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
>> index 65f0262f635e..ad676e99e0b3 100644
>> --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
>> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
>> @@ -628,6 +628,11 @@ static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock(struct
>> rw_semaphore *sem,
>> new = count;
>> if (count & RWSEM_LOCK_MASK) {
>> + /*
>> + * A waiter (first or not) can set the handoff bit
>> + * if it is an RT task or wait in the wait queue
>> + * for too long.
>> + */
>> if (has_handoff || (!rt_task(waiter->task) &&
>> !time_after(jiffies, waiter->timeout)))
>> return false;
>> @@ -643,11 +648,13 @@ static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock(struct
>> rw_semaphore *sem,
>> } while (!atomic_long_try_cmpxchg_acquire(&sem->count, &count,
>> new));
>> /*
>> - * We have either acquired the lock with handoff bit cleared or
>> - * set the handoff bit.
>> + * We have either acquired the lock with handoff bit cleared or set
>> + * the handoff bit. Only the first waiter can have its handoff_set
>> + * set here to enable optimistic spinning in slowpath loop.
>> */
>> if (new & RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF) {
>> - waiter->handoff_set = true;
>> + if (waiter == first)
>> + waiter->handoff_set = true;
>> lockevent_inc(rwsem_wlock_handoff);
>> return false;
>> }
> Hi,.
>
> Are you missing
>
>
> [PATCH 5.18 87/88] locking/rwsem: Allow slowpath writer to ignore
> handoff bit if not set by first waiter
>
>
>
> Fixes: d257cc8cb8d5 ("locking/rwsem: Make handoff bit handling more
> consistent")
>
> Or is this another regression ?
>
It is another regression which.
Cheers,
Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-09-30 1:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-09-29 18:04 Waiman Long
2022-09-29 18:06 ` Waiman Long
2022-09-30 4:47 ` Mukesh Ojha
2022-10-10 10:24 ` Mukesh Ojha
2022-10-10 16:57 ` Waiman Long
[not found] ` <03421f0e453143f6ae4a9a7a8a4f47f4@xiaomi.com>
[not found] ` <446288c6c7db4ab2b23f7041baa62335@xiaomi.com>
2022-10-12 13:21 ` Waiman Long
2022-09-29 21:15 ` John Donnelly
2022-09-30 1:09 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2022-09-30 4:46 ` Mukesh Ojha
2022-09-30 13:57 ` Waiman Long
2022-09-30 5:06 ` Mukesh Ojha
2022-09-30 14:08 ` Waiman Long
2022-09-30 16:03 ` Mukesh Ojha
[not found] <20221011104621.231-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2022-10-11 13:16 ` Mukesh Ojha
2022-10-12 13:16 ` Waiman Long
2022-10-12 13:14 ` Waiman Long
[not found] <20221012040410.403-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2022-10-12 13:19 ` Waiman Long
2022-10-12 13:42 ` Mukesh Ojha
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=998fd708-df53-7141-182e-6cbc02cd7819@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=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=quic_mojha@quicinc.com \
--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®