mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@quicinc.com>,
	peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, will@kernel.org,
	boqun.feng@gmail.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Gokul krishna Krishnakumar <quic_gokukris@quicinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locking/rwsem: Disable preemption while trying for rwsem lock
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2022 14:30:09 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b7ed663e-2b5b-80d7-4039-8995084dd572@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1662661467-24203-1-git-send-email-quic_mojha@quicinc.com>

On 9/8/22 14:24, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> From: Gokul krishna Krishnakumar <quic_gokukris@quicinc.com>
>
> Make the region inside the rwsem_write_trylock non preemptible.
>
> We observe RT task is hogging CPU when trying to acquire rwsem lock
> which was acquired by a kworker task but before the rwsem owner was set.
>
> Here is the scenario:
> 1. CFS task (affined to a particular CPU) takes rwsem lock.
>
> 2. CFS task gets preempted by a RT task before setting owner.
>
> 3. RT task (FIFO) is trying to acquire the lock, but spinning until
> RT throttling happens for the lock as the lock was taken by CFS task.
>
> This patch attempts to fix the above issue by disabling preemption
> until owner is set for the lock. While at it also fix the issues
> at the places where rwsem_{set,clear}_owner() are called.
>
> This also adds lockdep annotation of preemption disable in
> rwsem_{set,clear}_owner() on Peter Z. suggestion.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gokul krishna Krishnakumar <quic_gokukris@quicinc.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@quicinc.com>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
>   - Remove preempt disable code in rwsem_try_write_lock_unqueued()
>   - Addressed suggestion from Peter Z.
>   - Modified commit text
>   kernel/locking/rwsem.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> index 65f0262..4487359 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> @@ -133,14 +133,19 @@
>    * the owner value concurrently without lock. Read from owner, however,
>    * may not need READ_ONCE() as long as the pointer value is only used
>    * for comparison and isn't being dereferenced.
> + *
> + * Both rwsem_{set,clear}_owner() functions should be in the same
> + * preempt disable section as the atomic op that changes sem->count.
>    */
>   static inline void rwsem_set_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>   {
> +	lockdep_assert_preemption_disabled();
>   	atomic_long_set(&sem->owner, (long)current);
>   }
>   
>   static inline void rwsem_clear_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>   {
> +	lockdep_assert_preemption_disabled();
>   	atomic_long_set(&sem->owner, 0);
>   }
>   
> @@ -251,13 +256,16 @@ static inline bool rwsem_read_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem, long *cntp)
>   static inline bool rwsem_write_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>   {
>   	long tmp = RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE;
> +	bool ret = false;
>   
> +	preempt_disable();
>   	if (atomic_long_try_cmpxchg_acquire(&sem->count, &tmp, RWSEM_WRITER_LOCKED)) {
>   		rwsem_set_owner(sem);
> -		return true;
> +		ret = true;
>   	}
>   
> -	return false;
> +	preempt_enable();
> +	return ret;
>   }
>   
>   /*
> @@ -1352,8 +1360,10 @@ static inline void __up_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>   	DEBUG_RWSEMS_WARN_ON((rwsem_owner(sem) != current) &&
>   			    !rwsem_test_oflags(sem, RWSEM_NONSPINNABLE), sem);
>   
> +	preempt_disable();
>   	rwsem_clear_owner(sem);
>   	tmp = atomic_long_fetch_add_release(-RWSEM_WRITER_LOCKED, &sem->count);
> +	preempt_enable();
>   	if (unlikely(tmp & RWSEM_FLAG_WAITERS))
>   		rwsem_wake(sem);
>   }
Reviewed-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>

Cheers,
Longman


  reply	other threads:[~2022-09-08 18:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-09-08 18:24 Mukesh Ojha
2022-09-08 18:30 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2022-09-15 14:23 ` [tip: locking/core] " tip-bot2 for Gokul krishna Krishnakumar
2024-03-05 11:04 ` [PATCH v2] " Aaro Koskinen
2024-03-05 14:55   ` Waiman Long
2024-04-02 17:30     ` Aaro Koskinen
2024-04-02 17:42       ` Greg KH
2024-04-02 18:25         ` Aaro Koskinen
2024-04-05  6:32           ` Greg KH

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=b7ed663e-2b5b-80d7-4039-8995084dd572@redhat.com \
    --to=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=quic_gokukris@quicinc.com \
    --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®