linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] brw_mutex: big read-write mutex

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1210191948130.12753@file.rdu.redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:09:38 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] brw_mutex: big read-write mutex



On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> On 10/19, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> >
> > synchronize_rcu() is way slower than msleep(1) -
> 
> This depends, I guess. but this doesn't mmatter,
> 
> > so I don't see a reason
> > why should it be complicated to avoid msleep(1).
> 
> I don't think this really needs complications. Please look at this
> patch for example. Or initial (single writer) version below. It is
> not finished and lacks the barriers too, but I do not think it is
> more complex.

Hi

My implementation has a smaller structure (it doesn't have 
wait_queue_head_t).

Using preempt_disable()/synchronize_sched() instead of RCU seems like a 
good idea. Here, the locked region is so small that it doesn't make sense 
to play tricks with preemptible RCU.

Your implementation is prone to starvation - if the writer has a high 
priority and if it is doing back-to-back write unlocks/locks, it may 
happen that the readers have no chance to run.

The use of mutex instead of a wait queue in my implementation is unusual, 
but I don't see anything wrong with it - it makes the structure smaller 
and it solves the starvation problem (which would otherwise be complicated 
to solve).

Mikulas

> Oleg.
> 
> struct brw_sem {
> 	long __percpu		*read_ctr;
> 	wait_queue_head_t	read_waitq;
> 	struct mutex		writer_mutex;
> 	struct task_struct	*writer;
> };
> 
> int brw_init(struct brw_sem *brw)
> {
> 	brw->writer = NULL;
> 	mutex_init(&brw->writer_mutex);
> 	init_waitqueue_head(&brw->read_waitq);
> 	brw->read_ctr = alloc_percpu(long);
> 	return brw->read_ctr ? 0 : -ENOMEM;
> }
> 
> void brw_down_read(struct brw_sem *brw)
> {
> 	for (;;) {
> 		bool done = false;
> 
> 		preempt_disable();
> 		if (likely(!brw->writer)) {
> 			__this_cpu_inc(*brw->read_ctr);
> 			done = true;
> 		}
> 		preempt_enable();
> 
> 		if (likely(done))
> 			break;
> 
> 		__wait_event(brw->read_waitq, !brw->writer);
> 	}
> }
> 
> void brw_up_read(struct brw_sem *brw)
> {
> 	struct task_struct *writer;
> 
> 	preempt_disable();
> 	__this_cpu_dec(*brw->read_ctr);
> 	writer = ACCESS_ONCE(brw->writer);
> 	if (unlikely(writer))
> 		wake_up_process(writer);
> 	preempt_enable();
> }
> 
> static inline long brw_read_ctr(struct brw_sem *brw)
> {
> 	long sum = 0;
> 	int cpu;
> 
> 	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
> 		sum += per_cpu(*brw->read_ctr, cpu);

Integer overflow on signed types is undefined - you should use unsigned 
long - you can use -fwrapv option to gcc to make signed overflow defined, 
but Linux doesn't use it.

> 
> 	return sum;
> }
> 
> void brw_down_write(struct brw_sem *brw)
> {
> 	mutex_lock(&brw->writer_mutex);
> 	brw->writer = current;
> 	synchronize_sched();
> 	/*
> 	 * Thereafter brw_*_read() must see ->writer != NULL,
> 	 * and we should see the result of __this_cpu_inc().
> 	 */
> 	for (;;) {
> 		set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> 		if (brw_read_ctr(brw) == 0)
> 			break;
> 		schedule();
> 	}
> 	__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> 	/*
> 	 * We can add another synchronize_sched() to avoid the
> 	 * spurious wakeups from brw_up_read() after return.
> 	 */
> }
> 
> void brw_up_write(struct brw_sem *brw)
> {
> 	brw->writer = NULL;
> 	synchronize_sched();

That synchronize_sched should be put before brw->writer = NULL. This is 
incorrect, because brw->writer = NULL may be reordered with previous 
writes done by this process and the other CPU may see brw->writer == NULL 
(and think that the lock is unlocked) while it doesn't see previous writes 
done by the writer.

I had this bug in my implementation too.

> 	wake_up_all(&brw->read_waitq);
> 	mutex_unlock(&brw->writer_mutex);
> }

Mikulas
--
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/