Message-ID: <20130208234403.GL2666@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 8 Feb 2013 15:44:03 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, tj@...nel.org,
	oleg@...hat.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, mingo@...nel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, namhyung@...nel.org,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, rjw@...k.pl, sbw@....edu,
	fweisbec@...il.com, linux@....linux.org.uk,
	nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 05/45] percpu_rwlock: Make percpu-rwlocks IRQ-safe,
 optimally

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 01:04:11PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> If interrupt handlers can also be readers, then one of the ways to make
> per-CPU rwlocks safe, is to disable interrupts at the reader side before
> trying to acquire the per-CPU rwlock and keep it disabled throughout the
> duration of the read-side critical section.
> 
> The goal is to avoid cases such as:
> 
>   1. writer is active and it holds the global rwlock for write
> 
>   2. a regular reader comes in and marks itself as present (by incrementing
>      its per-CPU refcount) before checking whether writer is active.
> 
>   3. an interrupt hits the reader;
>      [If it had not hit, the reader would have noticed that the writer is
>       active and would have decremented its refcount and would have tried
>       to acquire the global rwlock for read].
>      Since the interrupt handler also happens to be a reader, it notices
>      the non-zero refcount (which was due to the reader who got interrupted)
>      and thinks that this is a nested read-side critical section and
>      proceeds to take the fastpath, which is wrong. The interrupt handler
>      should have noticed that the writer is active and taken the rwlock
>      for read.
> 
> So, disabling interrupts can help avoid this problem (at the cost of keeping
> the interrupts disabled for quite long).
> 
> But Oleg had a brilliant idea by which we can do much better than that:
> we can manage with disabling interrupts _just_ during the updates (writes to
> per-CPU refcounts) to safe-guard against races with interrupt handlers.
> Beyond that, we can keep the interrupts enabled and still be safe w.r.t
> interrupt handlers that can act as readers.
> 
> Basically the idea is that we differentiate between the *part* of the
> per-CPU refcount that we use for reference counting vs the part that we use
> merely to make the writer wait for us to switch over to the right
> synchronization scheme.
> 
> The scheme involves splitting the per-CPU refcounts into 2 parts:
> eg: the lower 16 bits are used to track the nesting depth of the reader
> (a "nested-counter"), and the remaining (upper) bits are used to merely mark
> the presence of the reader.
> 
> As long as the overall reader_refcnt is non-zero, the writer waits for the
> reader (assuming that the reader is still actively using per-CPU refcounts for
> synchronization).
> 
> The reader first sets one of the higher bits to mark its presence, and then
> uses the lower 16 bits to manage the nesting depth. So, an interrupt handler
> coming in as illustrated above will be able to distinguish between "this is
> a nested read-side critical section" vs "we have merely marked our presence
> to make the writer wait for us to switch" by looking at the same refcount.
> Thus, it makes it unnecessary to keep interrupts disabled throughout the
> read-side critical section, despite having the possibility of interrupt
> handlers being readers themselves.
> 
> 
> Implement this logic and rename the locking functions appropriately, to
> reflect what they do.

One nit below.  The issues called out in the previous patch still seem
to me to apply.

							Thanx, Paul

> Based-on-idea-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> 
>  include/linux/percpu-rwlock.h |   15 ++++++++++-----
>  lib/percpu-rwlock.c           |   41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>  2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/percpu-rwlock.h b/include/linux/percpu-rwlock.h
> index 6819bb8..856ba6b 100644
> --- a/include/linux/percpu-rwlock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/percpu-rwlock.h
> @@ -34,11 +34,13 @@ struct percpu_rwlock {
>  	rwlock_t		global_rwlock;
>  };
> 
> -extern void percpu_read_lock(struct percpu_rwlock *);
> -extern void percpu_read_unlock(struct percpu_rwlock *);
> +extern void percpu_read_lock_irqsafe(struct percpu_rwlock *);
> +extern void percpu_read_unlock_irqsafe(struct percpu_rwlock *);
> 
> -extern void percpu_write_lock(struct percpu_rwlock *);
> -extern void percpu_write_unlock(struct percpu_rwlock *);
> +extern void percpu_write_lock_irqsave(struct percpu_rwlock *,
> +				      unsigned long *flags);
> +extern void percpu_write_unlock_irqrestore(struct percpu_rwlock *,
> +					   unsigned long *flags);
> 
>  extern int __percpu_init_rwlock(struct percpu_rwlock *,
>  				const char *, struct lock_class_key *);
> @@ -68,11 +70,14 @@ extern void percpu_free_rwlock(struct percpu_rwlock *);
>  	__percpu_init_rwlock(pcpu_rwlock, #pcpu_rwlock, &rwlock_key);	\
>  })
> 
> +#define READER_PRESENT		(1UL << 16)
> +#define READER_REFCNT_MASK	(READER_PRESENT - 1)
> +
>  #define reader_uses_percpu_refcnt(pcpu_rwlock, cpu)			\
>  		(ACCESS_ONCE(per_cpu(*((pcpu_rwlock)->reader_refcnt), cpu)))
> 
>  #define reader_nested_percpu(pcpu_rwlock)				\
> -			(__this_cpu_read(*((pcpu_rwlock)->reader_refcnt)) > 1)
> +	(__this_cpu_read(*((pcpu_rwlock)->reader_refcnt)) & READER_REFCNT_MASK)
> 
>  #define writer_active(pcpu_rwlock)					\
>  			(__this_cpu_read(*((pcpu_rwlock)->writer_signal)))
> diff --git a/lib/percpu-rwlock.c b/lib/percpu-rwlock.c
> index 992da5c..a8d177a 100644
> --- a/lib/percpu-rwlock.c
> +++ b/lib/percpu-rwlock.c
> @@ -62,19 +62,19 @@ void percpu_free_rwlock(struct percpu_rwlock *pcpu_rwlock)
>  	pcpu_rwlock->writer_signal = NULL;
>  }
> 
> -void percpu_read_lock(struct percpu_rwlock *pcpu_rwlock)
> +void percpu_read_lock_irqsafe(struct percpu_rwlock *pcpu_rwlock)
>  {
>  	preempt_disable();
> 
>  	/* First and foremost, let the writer know that a reader is active */
> -	this_cpu_inc(*pcpu_rwlock->reader_refcnt);
> +	this_cpu_add(*pcpu_rwlock->reader_refcnt, READER_PRESENT);
> 
>  	/*
>  	 * If we are already using per-cpu refcounts, it is not safe to switch
>  	 * the synchronization scheme. So continue using the refcounts.
>  	 */
>  	if (reader_nested_percpu(pcpu_rwlock)) {
> -		goto out;
> +		this_cpu_inc(*pcpu_rwlock->reader_refcnt);

Hmmm...  If the reader is nested, it -doesn't- need the memory barrier at
the end of this function.  If there is lots of nesting, it might be
worth getting rid of it.

>  	} else {
>  		/*
>  		 * The write to 'reader_refcnt' must be visible before we
> @@ -83,9 +83,19 @@ void percpu_read_lock(struct percpu_rwlock *pcpu_rwlock)
>  		smp_mb(); /* Paired with smp_rmb() in sync_reader() */
> 
>  		if (likely(!writer_active(pcpu_rwlock))) {
> -			goto out;
> +			this_cpu_inc(*pcpu_rwlock->reader_refcnt);
>  		} else {
>  			/* Writer is active, so switch to global rwlock. */
> +
> +			/*
> +			 * While we are spinning on ->global_rwlock, an
> +			 * interrupt can hit us, and the interrupt handler
> +			 * might call this function. The distinction between
> +			 * READER_PRESENT and the refcnt helps ensure that the
> +			 * interrupt handler also takes this branch and spins
> +			 * on the ->global_rwlock, as long as the writer is
> +			 * active.
> +			 */
>  			read_lock(&pcpu_rwlock->global_rwlock);
> 
>  			/*
> @@ -95,26 +105,27 @@ void percpu_read_lock(struct percpu_rwlock *pcpu_rwlock)
>  			 * back to per-cpu refcounts. (This also helps avoid
>  			 * heterogeneous nesting of readers).
>  			 */
> -			if (writer_active(pcpu_rwlock))
> -				this_cpu_dec(*pcpu_rwlock->reader_refcnt);
> -			else
> +			if (!writer_active(pcpu_rwlock)) {
> +				this_cpu_inc(*pcpu_rwlock->reader_refcnt);
>  				read_unlock(&pcpu_rwlock->global_rwlock);
> +			}
>  		}
>  	}
> 
> -out:
> +	this_cpu_sub(*pcpu_rwlock->reader_refcnt, READER_PRESENT);
> +
>  	/* Prevent reordering of any subsequent reads */
>  	smp_rmb();
>  }
> 
> -void percpu_read_unlock(struct percpu_rwlock *pcpu_rwlock)
> +void percpu_read_unlock_irqsafe(struct percpu_rwlock *pcpu_rwlock)
>  {
>  	/*
>  	 * We never allow heterogeneous nesting of readers. So it is trivial
>  	 * to find out the kind of reader we are, and undo the operation
>  	 * done by our corresponding percpu_read_lock().
>  	 */
> -	if (__this_cpu_read(*pcpu_rwlock->reader_refcnt)) {
> +	if (reader_nested_percpu(pcpu_rwlock)) {
>  		this_cpu_dec(*pcpu_rwlock->reader_refcnt);
>  		smp_wmb(); /* Paired with smp_rmb() in sync_reader() */
>  	} else {
> @@ -184,7 +195,8 @@ static void sync_all_readers(struct percpu_rwlock *pcpu_rwlock)
>  		sync_reader(pcpu_rwlock, cpu);
>  }
> 
> -void percpu_write_lock(struct percpu_rwlock *pcpu_rwlock)
> +void percpu_write_lock_irqsave(struct percpu_rwlock *pcpu_rwlock,
> +			       unsigned long *flags)
>  {
>  	/*
>  	 * Tell all readers that a writer is becoming active, so that they
> @@ -192,10 +204,11 @@ void percpu_write_lock(struct percpu_rwlock *pcpu_rwlock)
>  	 */
>  	announce_writer_active(pcpu_rwlock);
>  	sync_all_readers(pcpu_rwlock);
> -	write_lock(&pcpu_rwlock->global_rwlock);
> +	write_lock_irqsave(&pcpu_rwlock->global_rwlock, *flags);
>  }
> 
> -void percpu_write_unlock(struct percpu_rwlock *pcpu_rwlock)
> +void percpu_write_unlock_irqrestore(struct percpu_rwlock *pcpu_rwlock,
> +			 unsigned long *flags)
>  {
>  	/*
>  	 * Inform all readers that we are done, so that they can switch back
> @@ -203,6 +216,6 @@ void percpu_write_unlock(struct percpu_rwlock *pcpu_rwlock)
>  	 * see it).
>  	 */
>  	announce_writer_inactive(pcpu_rwlock);
> -	write_unlock(&pcpu_rwlock->global_rwlock);
> +	write_unlock_irqrestore(&pcpu_rwlock->global_rwlock, *flags);
>  }
> 
> 

--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists