| 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: <1399474907-22206-13-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 11:01:40 -0400
From: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@...il.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@...com>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
Subject: [PATCH v10 12/19] unfair qspinlock: Variable frequency lock stealing mechanism
In order to fully resolve the lock waiter preemption problem in virtual
guests, it is necessary to enable lock stealing in the lock waiters.
A simple test-and-set lock, however, has 2 main problems:
1) The constant spinning on the lock word put a lot of cacheline
contention traffic on the affected cacheline, thus slowing tasks
that need to access the cacheline.
2) Lock starvation is a real possibility especially if the number of
virtual CPUs is large.
To alleviate these problems, this patch implements a variable frequency
(from 1/8 to 1/1024) lock stealing mechanism for the lock waiters
in the queue. The node next to the queue head try to steal lock once
every 8 iterations of the pause loop. The next one in the queue has
half the lock stealing frequency (once every 16 iterations) and so
on until it reaches a maximum of once every 1024 iterations.
This mechanism reduces the cacheline contention problem on the lock
word while trying to maintain as much of a FIFO order as possible.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
---
kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 147 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 files changed, 146 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
index a14241e..06dd486 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
@@ -63,6 +63,11 @@
*/
struct qnode {
struct mcs_spinlock mcs;
+#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_UNFAIR_LOCKS
+ int lsteal_mask; /* Lock stealing frequency mask */
+ u32 prev_tail; /* Tail code of previous node */
+ struct qnode *qprev; /* Previous queue node addr */
+#endif
};
#define qhead mcs.locked /* The queue head flag */
@@ -215,6 +220,139 @@ xchg_tail(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 tail, u32 *pval)
}
#endif /* _Q_PENDING_BITS == 8 */
+/*
+ ************************************************************************
+ * Inline functions for supporting unfair queue lock *
+ ************************************************************************
+ */
+/*
+ * Unfair lock support in a virtualized guest
+ *
+ * An unfair lock can be implemented using a simple test-and-set lock like
+ * what is being done in a read-write lock. This simple scheme has 2 major
+ * problems:
+ * 1) It needs constant reading and occasionally writing to the lock word
+ * thus putting a lot of cacheline contention traffic on the affected
+ * cacheline.
+ * 2) Lock starvation is a real possibility especially if the number of
+ * virtual CPUs is large.
+ *
+ * To reduce the undesirable side effects of an unfair lock, the queue
+ * unfair spinlock implements a more elaborate scheme. Lock stealing is
+ * allowed in the following places:
+ * 1) In the spin_lock and spin_trylock fastpaths
+ * 2) When spinning in the waiter queue before becoming the queue head
+ *
+ * A lock acquirer has only one chance of stealing the lock in the spin_lock
+ * and spin_trylock fastpath. If the attempt fails for spin_lock, the task
+ * will be queued in the wait queue.
+ *
+ * Even in the wait queue, the task can still attempt to steal the lock
+ * periodically at a frequency about inversely and logarithmically proportional
+ * to its distance from the queue head. In other word, the closer it is to
+ * the queue head, the higher a chance it has of stealing the lock. This
+ * scheme reduces the load on the lock cacheline while trying to maintain
+ * a somewhat FIFO way of getting the lock so as to reduce the chance of lock
+ * starvation.
+ */
+#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_UNFAIR_LOCKS
+#define DEF_LOOP_CNT(c) int c = 0
+#define INC_LOOP_CNT(c) (c)++
+#define LOOP_CNT(c) c
+#define LSTEAL_MIN (1 << 3)
+#define LSTEAL_MAX (1 << 10)
+#define LSTEAL_MIN_MASK (LSTEAL_MIN - 1)
+#define LSTEAL_MAX_MASK (LSTEAL_MAX - 1)
+
+/**
+ * unfair_init_vars - initialize unfair relevant fields in queue node structure
+ * @node: Current queue node address
+ */
+static inline void unfair_init_vars(struct qnode *node)
+{
+ node->qprev = NULL;
+ node->prev_tail = 0;
+ node->lsteal_mask = LSTEAL_MIN_MASK;
+}
+
+/**
+ * unfair_set_vars - set unfair related fields in the queue node structure
+ * @node : Current queue node address
+ * @prev : Previous queue node address
+ * @prev_tail: Previous tail code
+ */
+static inline void
+unfair_set_vars(struct qnode *node, struct qnode *prev, u32 prev_tail)
+{
+ if (!static_key_false(¶virt_unfairlocks_enabled))
+ return;
+
+ node->qprev = prev;
+ node->prev_tail = prev_tail;
+ /*
+ * This node will spin double the number of time of the previous node
+ * before attempting to steal the lock until it reaches a maximum.
+ */
+ node->lsteal_mask = prev->qhead ? LSTEAL_MIN_MASK :
+ (prev->lsteal_mask << 1) + 1;
+ if (node->lsteal_mask > LSTEAL_MAX_MASK)
+ node->lsteal_mask = LSTEAL_MAX_MASK;
+ /* Make sure the new fields are visible to others */
+ smp_wmb();
+}
+
+/**
+ * unfair_get_lock - try to steal the lock periodically
+ * @lock : Pointer to queue spinlock structure
+ * @node : Current queue node address
+ * @tail : My tail code value
+ * @count: Loop count
+ * Return: true if the lock has been stolen, false otherwise
+ *
+ * When a true value is returned, the caller will have to notify the next
+ * node only if the qhead flag is set and the next pointer in the queue
+ * node is not NULL.
+ */
+static noinline int
+unfair_get_lock(struct qspinlock *lock, struct qnode *node, u32 tail, int count)
+{
+ u32 prev_tail;
+ int isqhead;
+ struct qnode *next;
+
+ if (!static_key_false(¶virt_unfairlocks_enabled) ||
+ ((count & node->lsteal_mask) != node->lsteal_mask))
+ return false;
+
+ if (!queue_spin_trylock_unfair(lock)) {
+ /*
+ * Lock stealing fails, re-adjust the lsteal mask so that
+ * it is about double of the previous node.
+ */
+ struct qnode *prev = node->qprev;
+
+ node->lsteal_mask = prev->qhead ? LSTEAL_MIN_MASK :
+ (prev->lsteal_mask << 1) + 1;
+ if (node->lsteal_mask > LSTEAL_MAX_MASK)
+ node->lsteal_mask = LSTEAL_MAX_MASK;
+ return false;
+ }
+ queue_spin_unlock(lock);
+ return false;
+}
+
+#else /* CONFIG_PARAVIRT_UNFAIR_LOCKS */
+#define DEF_LOOP_CNT(c)
+#define INC_LOOP_CNT(c)
+#define LOOP_CNT(c) 0
+
+static void unfair_init_vars(struct qnode *node) {}
+static void unfair_set_vars(struct qnode *node, struct qnode *prev,
+ u32 prev_tail) {}
+static int unfair_get_lock(struct qspinlock *lock, struct qnode *node,
+ u32 tail, int count) { return false; }
+#endif /* CONFIG_PARAVIRT_UNFAIR_LOCKS */
+
/**
* get_qlock - Set the lock bit and own the lock
* @lock : Pointer to queue spinlock structure
@@ -365,11 +503,17 @@ static noinline void queue_spin_lock_slowerpath(struct qspinlock *lock,
* if there was a previous node; link it and wait.
*/
if (old & _Q_TAIL_MASK) {
+ DEF_LOOP_CNT(cnt);
+
prev = decode_tail(old);
+ unfair_set_vars(node, prev, old);
ACCESS_ONCE(prev->mcs.next) = (struct mcs_spinlock *)node;
- while (!smp_load_acquire(&node->qhead))
+ while (!smp_load_acquire(&node->qhead)) {
+ INC_LOOP_CNT(cnt);
+ unfair_get_lock(lock, node, tail, LOOP_CNT(cnt));
arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
+ }
}
/*
@@ -469,6 +613,7 @@ void queue_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
node += idx;
node->qhead = 0;
node->mcs.next = NULL;
+ unfair_init_vars(node);
/*
* We touched a (possibly) cold cacheline in the per-cpu queue node;
--
1.7.1
--
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