| 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: <1458668804-10138-2-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 13:46:42 -0400
From: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@....com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@....com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
"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>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
Subject: [PATCH v3 1/3] locking/mutex: Add waiter parameter to mutex_optimistic_spin()
This patch adds a new waiter parameter to the mutex_optimistic_spin()
function to prepare it to be used by a waiter-spinner that doesn't
need to go into the OSQ as there can only be one waiter-spinner which
is the head of the waiting queue.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
---
kernel/locking/mutex.c | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
1 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
index 0551c21..5dd6171 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -273,11 +273,15 @@ static inline int mutex_can_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock)
/*
* Atomically try to take the lock when it is available
+ *
+ * For waiter-spinner, the count needs to be set to -1 first which will be
+ * cleared to 0 later on if the list becomes empty. For regular spinner,
+ * the count will be set to 0.
*/
-static inline bool mutex_try_to_acquire(struct mutex *lock)
+static inline bool mutex_try_to_acquire(struct mutex *lock, int waiter)
{
return !mutex_is_locked(lock) &&
- (atomic_cmpxchg_acquire(&lock->count, 1, 0) == 1);
+ (atomic_cmpxchg_acquire(&lock->count, 1, waiter ? -1 : 0) == 1);
}
/*
@@ -302,22 +306,42 @@ static inline bool mutex_try_to_acquire(struct mutex *lock)
*
* Returns true when the lock was taken, otherwise false, indicating
* that we need to jump to the slowpath and sleep.
+ *
+ * The waiter flag is set to true if the spinner is a waiter in the wait
+ * queue. As the waiter has slept for a while, it should have priority to
+ * get the lock over the regular spinners. So going to wait at the end of
+ * the OSQ isn't fair to the waiter. Instead, it will spin on the lock
+ * directly and concurrently with the spinner at the head of the OSQ, if
+ * present. There may be a bit more cacheline contention in this case.
+ * The waiter also needs to set the lock to -1 instead of 0 on lock
+ * acquisition.
*/
static bool mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock,
- struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx, const bool use_ww_ctx)
+ struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx,
+ const bool use_ww_ctx, int waiter)
{
struct task_struct *task = current;
+ bool acquired = false;
- if (!mutex_can_spin_on_owner(lock))
- goto done;
+ if (!waiter) {
+ /*
+ * The purpose of the mutex_can_spin_on_owner() function is
+ * to eliminate the overhead of osq_lock() and osq_unlock()
+ * in case spinning isn't possible. As a waiter-spinner
+ * is not going to take OSQ lock anyway, there is no need
+ * to call mutex_can_spin_on_owner().
+ */
+ if (!mutex_can_spin_on_owner(lock))
+ goto done;
- /*
- * In order to avoid a stampede of mutex spinners trying to
- * acquire the mutex all at once, the spinners need to take a
- * MCS (queued) lock first before spinning on the owner field.
- */
- if (!osq_lock(&lock->osq))
- goto done;
+ /*
+ * In order to avoid a stampede of mutex spinners trying to
+ * acquire the mutex all at once, the spinners need to take a
+ * MCS (queued) lock first before spinning on the owner field.
+ */
+ if (!osq_lock(&lock->osq))
+ goto done;
+ }
while (true) {
struct task_struct *owner;
@@ -347,7 +371,7 @@ static bool mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock,
break;
/* Try to acquire the mutex if it is unlocked. */
- if (mutex_try_to_acquire(lock)) {
+ if (mutex_try_to_acquire(lock, waiter)) {
lock_acquired(&lock->dep_map, ip);
if (use_ww_ctx) {
@@ -358,8 +382,8 @@ static bool mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock,
}
mutex_set_owner(lock);
- osq_unlock(&lock->osq);
- return true;
+ acquired = true;
+ break;
}
/*
@@ -380,14 +404,15 @@ static bool mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock,
cpu_relax_lowlatency();
}
- osq_unlock(&lock->osq);
+ if (!waiter)
+ osq_unlock(&lock->osq);
done:
/*
* If we fell out of the spin path because of need_resched(),
* reschedule now, before we try-lock the mutex. This avoids getting
* scheduled out right after we obtained the mutex.
*/
- if (need_resched()) {
+ if (!acquired && need_resched()) {
/*
* We _should_ have TASK_RUNNING here, but just in case
* we do not, make it so, otherwise we might get stuck.
@@ -396,11 +421,12 @@ done:
schedule_preempt_disabled();
}
- return false;
+ return acquired;
}
#else
static bool mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock,
- struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx, const bool use_ww_ctx)
+ struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx,
+ const bool use_ww_ctx, int waiter)
{
return false;
}
@@ -517,7 +543,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
preempt_disable();
mutex_acquire_nest(&lock->dep_map, subclass, 0, nest_lock, ip);
- if (mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, use_ww_ctx)) {
+ if (mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, use_ww_ctx, false)) {
/* got the lock, yay! */
preempt_enable();
return 0;
--
1.7.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists