linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 05/11] locking/ww_mutex: Add waiters in stamp order

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 16 Dec 2016 14:34:53 +0100
From:   Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle@...il.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Nicolai Hähnle <Nicolai.Haehnle@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <dev@...ankhorst.nl>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/11] locking/ww_mutex: Add waiters in stamp order

On 06.12.2016 16:36, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:06:48PM +0100, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
>> +static inline int __sched
>> +__ww_mutex_add_waiter(struct mutex_waiter *waiter,
>> +		      struct mutex *lock,
>> +		      struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx)
>> +{
>> +	struct mutex_waiter *cur;
>> +
>> +	if (!ww_ctx) {
>> +		list_add_tail(&waiter->list, &lock->wait_list);
>> +		return 0;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Add the waiter before the first waiter with a higher stamp.
>> +	 * Waiters without a context are skipped to avoid starving
>> +	 * them.
>> +	 */
>> +	list_for_each_entry(cur, &lock->wait_list, list) {
>> +		if (!cur->ww_ctx)
>> +			continue;
>> +
>> +		if (__ww_mutex_stamp_after(ww_ctx, cur->ww_ctx)) {
>> +			/* Back off immediately if necessary. */
>> +			if (ww_ctx->acquired > 0) {
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES
>> +				struct ww_mutex *ww;
>> +
>> +				ww = container_of(lock, struct ww_mutex, base);
>> +				DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(ww_ctx->contending_lock);
>> +				ww_ctx->contending_lock = ww;
>> +#endif
>> +				return -EDEADLK;
>> +			}
>> +
>> +			continue;
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		list_add_tail(&waiter->list, &cur->list);
>> +		return 0;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	list_add_tail(&waiter->list, &lock->wait_list);
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>
> So you keep the list in order of stamp, and in general stamps come in,
> in-order. That is, barring races on concurrent ww_mutex_lock(), things
> are already ordered.
 >
> So it doesn't make sense to scan the entire list forwards, that's almost
> guarantees you scan the entire list every single time.
>
> Or am I reading this wrong? Which in itself is a hint a comment might be
> in place.

No, it's a reasonable question. Some things to keep in mind:

1. Each ww_acquire_ctx may be used with hundreds of locks. It's not that 
clear that things will be ordered in a contention scenario, especially 
since the old stamp is re-used when a context backs off and goes into 
the slow path (with ww_ctx->acquired == 0).

2. We want to add waiters directly before the first waiter with a higher 
stamp. Keeping in mind that there may be non-ww_ctx waiters in between, 
and we don't want to starve them, traversing the list backwards would 
require keeping the best insertion point around in a separate variable. 
Clearly possible, but it seemed more awkward.

In hindsight, backwards iteration may not be so bad.

Nicolai