linux-kernel - [PATCH/RFC] mutex: Fix optimistic spinning vs. BKL

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1272429513.24542.83.camel@pasglop>
Date:	Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:38:33 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tony Breeds <tonyb@....ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH/RFC] mutex: Fix optimistic spinning vs. BKL

Currently, we can hit a nasty case with optimistic spinning on mutexes:

    CPU A tries to take a mutex, while holding the BKL

    CPU B tried to take the BLK while holding the mutex

This looks like a AB-BA scenario but in practice, is allowed and happens
due to the auto-release-on-schedule nature of the BKL.

In that case, the optimistic spinning code can get us into a situation
where instead of going to sleep, A will spin waiting for B who is
spinning waiting for A, and the only way out of that loop is the
need_resched() test in mutex_spin_on_owner().

Now, that's bad enough since we may end up having those two processors
deadlocked for a while, thus introducing latencies, but I've had cases
where it completely stopped making forward progress. I suspect CPU A
had nothing else waiting to run, and see need_resched() was never set.

This patch fixes both in a rather crude way. I completely disable
spinning if we own the BKL, and I add a safety timeout using jiffies
to fallback to sleeping if we end up spinning for more than 1 or 2 jiffies.

Now, we -could- make it a bit smarter about the BKL by introducing a
contention counter and only go out if we own the BKL and it is contended,
but I didn't feel like this was worth the effort, time is better spent
removing the BKL from sensitive code path instead.

Regarding the choice of 1 or 2 jiffies, it's completely arbitrary. I
prefer that to an arbitrary number of milliseconds mostly because it's
expected that a 1000HZ kernel is run on a workload that expects smaller
latencies, and as such reflects better the idea that if we're going
to spin for more than a scheduler tick, we may as well schedule (and
save power by doing so if we hit the idle thread).

This timeout is also a safeguard in case we find another weird deadlock
scenario with optimistic spinning (that's the second one I found so far,
the other one was with CPU hotplug). At least we have some kind of
forward progress guarantee now.

Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
---

diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index dad7f66..bc6bd9a 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -361,7 +361,8 @@ extern signed long schedule_timeout_interruptible(signed long timeout);
 extern signed long schedule_timeout_killable(signed long timeout);
 extern signed long schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(signed long timeout);
 asmlinkage void schedule(void);
-extern int mutex_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock, struct thread_info *owner);
+extern int mutex_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock, struct thread_info *owner,
+			       unsigned long timeout);
 
 struct nsproxy;
 struct user_namespace;
diff --git a/kernel/mutex.c b/kernel/mutex.c
index 632f04c..59adbae 100644
--- a/kernel/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/mutex.c
@@ -145,6 +145,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
 	struct task_struct *task = current;
 	struct mutex_waiter waiter;
 	unsigned long flags;
+	unsigned long timeout;
 
 	preempt_disable();
 	mutex_acquire(&lock->dep_map, subclass, 0, ip);
@@ -168,15 +169,22 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
 	 * to serialize everything.
 	 */
 
-	for (;;) {
+	for (timeout = jiffies + 2; jiffies < timeout;) {
 		struct thread_info *owner;
 
 		/*
+		 * If we own the BKL, then don't spin. The owner of the mutex
+		 * might be waiting on us to release the BKL.
+		 */
+		if (current->lock_depth >= 0)
+			break;
+
+		/*
 		 * If there's an owner, wait for it to either
 		 * release the lock or go to sleep.
 		 */
 		owner = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->owner);
-		if (owner && !mutex_spin_on_owner(lock, owner))
+		if (owner && !mutex_spin_on_owner(lock, owner, timeout))
 			break;
 
 		if (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->count, 1, 0) == 1) {
diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
index a3dff1f..b582f2e 100644
--- a/kernel/sched.c
+++ b/kernel/sched.c
@@ -3765,7 +3765,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(schedule);
  * Look out! "owner" is an entirely speculative pointer
  * access and not reliable.
  */
-int mutex_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock, struct thread_info *owner)
+int mutex_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock, struct thread_info *owner,
+			unsigned long timeout)
 {
 	unsigned int cpu;
 	struct rq *rq;
@@ -3801,7 +3802,7 @@ int mutex_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock, struct thread_info *owner)
 
 	rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
 
-	for (;;) {
+	while (jiffies < timeout) {
 		/*
 		 * Owner changed, break to re-assess state.
 		 */


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/