linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] locking/mutex: Fix starvation of sleeping waiters

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:	Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:47:49 -0700
From:	Jason Low <jason.low2@....com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	jason.low2@....com, Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
	Ville Syrj??l?? <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>,
	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@....com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, jason.low2@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC] locking/mutex: Fix starvation of sleeping waiters

On Mon, 2016-07-18 at 19:15 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 07:16:47PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > Currently a thread sleeping on a mutex wait queue can be delayed
> > indefinitely by other threads managing to steal the lock, that is
> > acquiring the lock out-of-order before the sleepers. I noticed this via
> > a testcase (see the Reference: below) where one CPU was unlocking /
> > relocking a mutex in a tight loop while another CPU was delayed
> > indefinitely trying to wake up and get the lock but losing out to the
> > first CPU and going back to sleep:
> > 
> > CPU0:                        CPU1:
> > mutex_lock->acquire
> >                              mutex_lock->sleep
> > mutex_unlock->wake CPU1
> >                              wakeup
> > mutex_lock->acquire
> >                              trylock fail->sleep
> > mutex_unlock->wake CPU1
> >                              wakeup
> > mutex_lock->acquire
> >                              trylock fail->sleep
> > ...			     ...
> > 
> > To fix this we can make sure that CPU1 makes progress by avoiding the
> > fastpath locking, optimistic spinning and trylocking if there is any
> > waiter on the list.  The corresponding check can be done without holding
> > wait_lock, since the goal is only to make sure sleepers make progress
> > and not to guarantee that the locking will happen in FIFO order.
> 
> I think we went over this before, that will also completely destroy
> performance under a number of workloads.

Yup, once a thread becomes a waiter, all other threads will need to
follow suit, so this change would effectively disable optimistic
spinning in some workloads.

A few months ago, we worked on patches that allow the waiter to return
to optimistic spinning to help reduce starvation. Longman sent out a
version 3 patch set, and it sounded like we were fine with the concept.

Jason