[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54ECC0A1.1080802@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 23:49:13 +0530
From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
konrad.wilk@...cle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, waiman.long@...com, davej@...hat.com,
oleg@...hat.com, x86@...nel.org, jeremy@...p.org,
paul.gortmaker@...driver.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
jasowang@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, riel@...hat.com,
borntraeger@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
a.ryabinin@...sung.com, sasha.levin@...cle.com, dave@...olabs.net,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH for stable] x86/spinlocks/paravirt: Fix memory corruption
on unlock
On 02/24/2015 08:17 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 02:54:59PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>>> Paravirt spinlock clears slowpath flag after doing unlock.
>>> As explained by Linus currently it does:
>>> prev = *lock;
>>> add_smp(&lock->tickets.head, TICKET_LOCK_INC);
>>>
>>> /* add_smp() is a full mb() */
>>>
>>> if (unlikely(lock->tickets.tail & TICKET_SLOWPATH_FLAG))
>>> __ticket_unlock_slowpath(lock, prev);
>>>
>>> which is *exactly* the kind of things you cannot do with spinlocks,
>>> because after you've done the "add_smp()" and released the spinlock
>>> for the fast-path, you can't access the spinlock any more. Exactly
>>> because a fast-path lock might come in, and release the whole data
>>> structure.
>>>
>>> Linus suggested that we should not do any writes to lock after unlock(),
>>> and we can move slowpath clearing to fastpath lock.
>>>
>>> So this patch implements the fix with:
>>> 1. Moving slowpath flag to head (Oleg):
>>> Unlocked locks don't care about the slowpath flag; therefore we can keep
>>> it set after the last unlock, and clear it again on the first (try)lock.
>>> -- this removes the write after unlock. note that keeping slowpath flag would
>>> result in unnecessary kicks.
>>> By moving the slowpath flag from the tail to the head ticket we also avoid
>>> the need to access both the head and tail tickets on unlock.
>>>
>>> 2. use xadd to avoid read/write after unlock that checks the need for
>>> unlock_kick (Linus):
>>> We further avoid the need for a read-after-release by using xadd;
>>> the prev head value will include the slowpath flag and indicate if we
>>> need to do PV kicking of suspended spinners -- on modern chips xadd
>>> isn't (much) more expensive than an add + load.
>>>
>>> Result:
>>> setup: 16core (32 cpu +ht sandy bridge 8GB 16vcpu guest)
>>> benchmark overcommit %improve
>>> kernbench 1x -0.13
>>> kernbench 2x 0.02
>>> dbench 1x -1.77
>>> dbench 2x -0.63
>>>
>>> [Jeremy: hinted missing TICKET_LOCK_INC for kick]
>>> [Oleg: Moving slowpath flag to head, ticket_equals idea]
>>> [PeterZ: Detailed changelog]
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
>>> Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
>>> Acked-by: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h | 94 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>>> arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c | 7 ++-
>>> arch/x86/xen/spinlock.c | 7 ++-
>>> 3 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> Changes for stable:
>>> - Don't replace the ACCESS_ONCE to READ_ONCE which would cause horraneous
>>> Compiler warnings (Linus, David Vbriel, PeterZ, Ingo)
>>
>> What is the git commit id of this in Linus's tree? What
>> stable tree(s) do you want this applied to?
>
> It's:
>
> d6abfdb20223 x86/spinlocks/paravirt: Fix memory corruption on unlock
Yes, This is the original patch. Please note I have taken out the
READ_ONCE changes from the original patch to avoid build warnings
mentioned below.
(Those READ_ONCE changes were cosmetic and was not present in the
previous versions)
>
> You'll also need this fix from Linus to avoid (harmless)
> build warnings:
>
> dd36929720f4 kernel: make READ_ONCE() valid on const arguments
So this may not be absolutely necessary with the current patch.
--
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