| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CACvQF50DvfOGosHgiN+D5GTUAJHjX+9xoxdrdGgzbh2ZbsdK=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 19:06:53 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <eag0628@...il.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
edumazet@...gle.com, darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
sbw@....edu, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC ticketlock] Auto-queued ticketlock
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-06-12 at 09:19 +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>
>> > +
>> > +/*
>> > + * Hand the lock off to the first CPU on the queue.
>> > + */
>> > +void tkt_q_do_wake(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
>> > +{
>> > + struct tkt_q_head *tqhp;
>> > + struct tkt_q *tqp;
>> > +
>> > + /* If the queue is still being set up, wait for it. */
>> > + while ((tqhp = tkt_q_find_head(lock)) == NULL)
>> > + cpu_relax();
>> > +
>> > + for (;;) {
>> > +
>> > + /* Find the first queue element. */
>> > + tqp = ACCESS_ONCE(tqhp->spin);
>> > + if (tqp != NULL)
>> > + break; /* Element exists, hand off lock. */
>> > + if (tkt_q_try_unqueue(lock, tqhp))
>> > + return; /* No element, successfully removed queue. */
>> > + cpu_relax();
>> > + }
>> > + if (ACCESS_ONCE(tqhp->head_tkt) != -1)
>> > + ACCESS_ONCE(tqhp->head_tkt) = -1;
>> > + smp_mb(); /* Order pointer fetch and assignment against handoff. */
>> > + ACCESS_ONCE(tqp->cpu) = -1;
>> > +}
>> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(tkt_q_do_wake);
>> > +
>> > +/*
>> > + * Given a lock that already has a queue associated with it, spin on
>> > + * that queue. Return false if there was no queue (which means we do not
>> > + * hold the lock) and true otherwise (meaning we -do- hold the lock).
>> > + */
>> > +bool tkt_q_do_spin(arch_spinlock_t *lock, struct __raw_tickets inc)
>> > +{
>> > + struct tkt_q **oldtail;
>> > + struct tkt_q tq;
>> > + struct tkt_q_head *tqhp;
>> > +
>> > + /*
>> > + * Ensure that accesses to queue header happen after sensing
>> > + * the lock's have-queue bit.
>> > + */
>> > + smp_mb(); /* See above block comment. */
>> > +
>> > + /* If there no longer is a queue, leave. */
>> > + tqhp = tkt_q_find_head(lock);
>> > + if (tqhp == NULL)
>> > + return false;
>> > +
>> > + /* Initialize our queue element. */
>> > + tq.cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
>> > + tq.tail = inc.tail;
>> > + tq.next = NULL;
>>
>> I guess a mb() is needed here for between read tqhp->ref and read
>> tqhp->head_tkt.
>> you can move the above mb() to here.
>
> Do we?
>
> The only way to get into here is if you either set up the queue
> yourself, or you saw the LSB set in head.
>
> If you were the one to set it up yourself, then there's nothing to worry
> about because you are also the one that set head_tkt.
>
> If you didn't set up the queue, then someone else set the LSB in head,
> which is done with a cmpxchg() which is also a full mb. This would make
> head_tkt visible as well because it's set before cmpxchg is called.
>
> Thus, to come into this function you must have seen head & 1 set, and
> the smp_mb() above will also make head_tkt visible.
>
> The only thing I can see now is that it might not find tqhp because ref
> may not be set yet. If that's the case, then it will fall out back to
> the main loop. But if it finds ref, then I don't see how it can't see
> head_tkt up to date as well.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something.
No, you are right.
When I lay on the bed in the night, I was thinking about the V1,
I wrongly considered the V2 has the same problem without deeper
thought in this morning.
V2 has not such problem. sorry for the noisy.
Thanks,
Lai
>
> -- Steve
>
>
>>
>> > +
>> > + /* Check to see if we already hold the lock. */
>> > + if (ACCESS_ONCE(tqhp->head_tkt) == inc.tail) {
>> > + /* The last holder left before queue formed, we hold lock. */
>> > + tqhp->head_tkt = -1;
>> > + return true;
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + /*
>> > + * Add our element to the tail of the queue. Note that if the
>> > + * queue is empty, the ->spin_tail pointer will reference
>> > + * the queue's head pointer, namely ->spin.
>> > + */
>> > + oldtail = xchg(&tqhp->spin_tail, &tq.next);
>> > + ACCESS_ONCE(*oldtail) = &tq;
>> > +
>> > + /* Spin until handoff. */
>> > + while (ACCESS_ONCE(tq.cpu) != -1)
>> > + cpu_relax();
>> > +
>> > + /*
>> > + * Remove our element from the queue. If the queue is now empty,
>> > + * update carefully so that the next acquisition will enqueue itself
>> > + * at the head of the list. Of course, the next enqueue operation
>> > + * might be happening concurrently, and this code needs to handle all
>> > + * of the possible combinations, keeping in mind that the enqueue
>> > + * operation happens in two stages: (1) update the tail pointer and
>> > + * (2) update the predecessor's ->next pointer. With this in mind,
>> > + * the following code needs to deal with three scenarios:
>> > + *
>> > + * 1. tq is the last entry. In this case, we use cmpxchg to
>> > + * point the list tail back to the list head (->spin). If
>> > + * the cmpxchg fails, that indicates that we are instead
>> > + * in scenario 2 below. If the cmpxchg succeeds, the next
>> > + * enqueue operation's tail-pointer exchange will enqueue
>> > + * the next element at the queue head, because the ->spin_tail
>> > + * pointer now references the queue head.
>> > + *
>> > + * 2. tq is the last entry, and the next entry has updated the
>> > + * tail pointer but has not yet updated tq.next. In this
>> > + * case, tq.next is NULL, the cmpxchg will fail, and the
>> > + * code will wait for the enqueue to complete before completing
>> > + * removal of tq from the list.
>> > + *
>> > + * 3. tq is not the last pointer. In this case, tq.next is non-NULL,
>> > + * so the following code simply removes tq from the list.
>> > + */
>> > + if (tq.next == NULL) {
>> > +
>> > + /* Mark the queue empty. */
>> > + tqhp->spin = NULL;
>> > +
>> > + /* Try to point the tail back at the head. */
>> > + if (cmpxchg(&tqhp->spin_tail,
>> > + &tq.next,
>> > + &tqhp->spin) == &tq.next)
>> > + return true; /* Succeeded, queue is now empty. */
>> > +
>> > + /* Failed, if needed, wait for the enqueue to complete. */
>> > + while (tq.next == NULL)
>> > + cpu_relax();
>> > +
>> > + /* The following code will repair the head. */
>> > + }
>> > + smp_mb(); /* Force ordering between handoff and critical section. */
>> > +
>> > + /*
>> > + * Advance list-head pointer. This same task will be the next to
>> > + * access this when releasing the lock, so no need for a memory
>> > + * barrier after the following assignment.
>> > + */
>> > + ACCESS_ONCE(tqhp->spin) = tq.next;
>> > + return true;
>> > +}
>> > +
>> > +/*
>> > + * Given a lock that does not have a queue, attempt to associate the
>> > + * i-th queue with it, returning true if successful (meaning we hold
>> > + * the lock) or false otherwise (meaning we do -not- hold the lock).
>> > + * Note that the caller has already filled in ->ref with 0x1, so we
>> > + * own the queue.
>> > + */
>> > +static bool
>> > +tkt_q_init_contend(int i, arch_spinlock_t *lock, struct __raw_tickets inc)
>> > +{
>> > + arch_spinlock_t asold;
>> > + arch_spinlock_t asnew;
>> > + struct tkt_q_head *tqhp;
>> > +
>> > + /* Initialize the i-th queue header. */
>> > + tqhp = &tkt_q_heads[i];
>> > + tqhp->spin = NULL;
>> > + tqhp->spin_tail = &tqhp->spin;
>> > +
>> > + /* Each pass through this loop attempts to mark the lock as queued. */
>> > + do {
>> > + asold.head_tail = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->head_tail);
>> > + asnew = asold;
>> > + if (asnew.tickets.head & 0x1) {
>> > +
>> > + /* Someone beat us to it, back out. */
>> > + smp_mb();
>> > + ACCESS_ONCE(tqhp->ref) = NULL;
>> > +
>> > + /* Spin on the queue element they set up. */
>> > + return tkt_q_do_spin(lock, inc);
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + /*
>> > + * Record the head counter in case one of the spinning
>> > + * CPUs already holds the lock but doesn't realize it yet.
>> > + */
>> > + tqhp->head_tkt = asold.tickets.head;
>> > +
>> > + /* The low-order bit in the head counter says "queued". */
>> > + asnew.tickets.head |= 0x1;
>> > + } while (cmpxchg(&lock->head_tail,
>> > + asold.head_tail,
>> > + asnew.head_tail) != asold.head_tail);
>> > +
>> > + /* Point the queue at the lock and go spin on it. */
>> > + ACCESS_ONCE(tqhp->ref) = lock;
>> > + return tkt_q_do_spin(lock, inc);
>> > +}
>> > +
>> > +/*
>> > + * Start handling a period of high contention by finding a queue to associate
>> > + * with this lock. Returns true if successful (in which case we hold the
>> > + * lock) and false otherwise (in which case we do -not- hold the lock).
>> > + */
>> > +bool tkt_q_start_contend(arch_spinlock_t *lock, struct __raw_tickets inc)
>> > +{
>> > + int i;
>> > + int start;
>> > +
>> > + /* Hash the lock address to find a starting point. */
>> > + start = i = tkt_q_hash(lock);
>> > +
>> > + /*
>> > + * Each pass through the following loop attempts to associate
>> > + * the lock with the corresponding queue.
>> > + */
>> > + do {
>> > + /*
>> > + * Use 0x1 to mark the queue in use, but also avoiding
>> > + * any spinners trying to use it before we get it all
>> > + * initialized.
>> > + */
>> > + if (tkt_q_heads[i].ref)
>> > + continue;
>> > + if (cmpxchg(&tkt_q_heads[i].ref,
>> > + NULL,
>> > + (arch_spinlock_t *)0x1) == NULL) {
>> > +
>> > + /* Succeeded, now go initialize it. */
>> > + return tkt_q_init_contend(i, lock, inc);
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + /* If someone beat us to it, go spin on their queue. */
>> > + if (ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets.head) & 0x1)
>> > + return tkt_q_do_spin(lock, inc);
>> > + } while ((i = tkt_q_next_slot(i)) != start);
>> > +
>> > + /* All the queues are in use, revert to spinning on the ticket lock. */
>> > + return false;
>> > +}
>> > +
>> > +bool tkt_spin_pass(arch_spinlock_t *ap, struct __raw_tickets inc)
>> > +{
>> > + if (unlikely(inc.head & 0x1)) {
>> > +
>> > + /* This lock has a queue, so go spin on the queue. */
>> > + if (tkt_q_do_spin(ap, inc))
>> > + return true;
>> > +
>> > + /* Get here if the queue is in transition: Retry next time. */
>> > +
>> > + } else if (inc.tail - TKT_Q_SWITCH == inc.head) {
>> > +
>> > + /*
>> > + * This lock has lots of spinners, but no queue.
>> > + * Go create a queue to spin on.
>> > + */
>> > + if (tkt_q_start_contend(ap, inc))
>> > + return true;
>> > +
>> > + /* Get here if the queue is in transition: Retry next time. */
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + /* Either no need for a queue or the queue is in transition. Spin. */
>> > + return false;
>> > +}
>> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(tkt_spin_pass);
>> >
>> > --
>> > 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/
>
>
--
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