linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] locking/mutex: Avoid spinner vs waiter starvation

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Tue, 2 Feb 2016 13:19:06 -0800
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
	Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>,
	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/mutex: Avoid spinner vs waiter starvation

On Mon, 01 Feb 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

>Subject: locking/mutex: Avoid spinner vs waiter starvation
>From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 12:06:53 +0100
>
>Ding Tianhong reported that under his load the optimistic spinners
>would totally starve a task that ended up on the wait list.
>
>Fix this by ensuring the top waiter also partakes in the optimistic
>spin queue.
>
>There are a few subtle differences between the assumed state of
>regular optimistic spinners and those already on the wait list, which
>result in the @acquired complication of the acquire path.
>
>Most notable are:
>
> - waiters are on the wait list and need to be taken off
> - mutex_optimistic_spin() sets the lock->count to 0 on acquire
>   even though there might be more tasks on the wait list.

Right, the main impact I see with these complications are that the
window of when a waiter takes the lock via spinning and then acquires
the wait_lock to remove itself from the list, will allow an unlock
thread to set the lock as available in the fastpath which could in
turn allow a third thread the steal the lock. With high contention,
this window will be come obviously larger as we contend for the
wait_lock.

CPU-0	      	 	       	    CPU-1			CPU-3
__mutex_lock_common		    
   mutex_optimistic_spin
   (->count now 0)
			__mutex_fastpath_unlock
			(->count now 1)				 __mutex_fastpath_lock
				     				 (stolen)
														
spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);

But we've always been bad when it comes to counter and waiters.

Thanks,
Davidlohr