linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Avoid mutex starvation when optimistic spinning is disabled

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]

Message-ID: <1469180097.30237.41.camel@intel.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 Jul 2016 12:34:57 +0300
From:	Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com>
To:	Jason Low <jason.low2@....com>, Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, jason.low2@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Avoid mutex starvation when optimistic spinning is
 disabled

On to, 2016-07-21 at 15:29 -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-07-20 at 14:37 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > On 07/20/2016 12:39 AM, Jason Low wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2016-07-19 at 16:04 -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> > > > Hi Imre,
> > > > 
> > > > Here is a patch which prevents a thread from spending too much
> > > > "time"
> > > > waiting for a mutex in the !CONFIG_MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER case.
> > > > 
> > > > Would you like to try this out and see if this addresses the
> > > > mutex
> > > > starvation issue you are seeing in your workload when
> > > > optimistic
> > > > spinning is disabled?
> > > Although it looks like it didn't take care of the 'lock stealing'
> > > case
> > > in the slowpath. Here is the updated fixed version:
> > > 
> > > ---
> > > Signed-off-by: Jason Low<jason.low2@....com>
> > > ---
> > >   include/linux/mutex.h  |  2 ++
> > >   kernel/locking/mutex.c | 65
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > >   2 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/mutex.h b/include/linux/mutex.h
> > > index 2cb7531..c1ca68d 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/mutex.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/mutex.h
> > > @@ -57,6 +57,8 @@ struct mutex {
> > >   #endif
> > >   #ifdef CONFIG_MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER
> > >   	struct optimistic_spin_queue osq; /* Spinner MCS lock
> > > */
> > > +#else
> > > +	bool yield_to_waiter; /* Prevent starvation when
> > > spinning disabled */
> > >   #endif
> > >   #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES
> > >   	void			*magic;
> > 
> > You don't need that on non-SMP system. So maybe you should put it
> > under 
> > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP block.
> 
> Right, maybe something like:
> 
>     #ifdef CONFIG_MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER
> 	...
> 	...
>     #elif !defined(CONFIG_SMP) /* If optimistic spinning disabled */
>         bool yield_to_waiter;
>     #endif
> 
> > > @@ -556,7 +595,8 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long
> > > state, unsigned int subclass,
> > >   		 * other waiters. We only attempt the xchg if
> > > the count is
> > >   		 * non-negative in order to avoid unnecessary
> > > xchg operations:
> > >   		 */
> > > -		if (atomic_read(&lock->count)>= 0&&
> > > +		if ((!need_yield_to_waiter(lock) || loop>  1)&&
> > > +		    atomic_read(&lock->count)>= 0&&
> > >   		(atomic_xchg_acquire(&lock->count, -1) == 1))
> > >   	
> > 
> > I think you need to reset the yield_to_waiter variable here when
> > loop > 
> > 1 instead of at the end of the loop.
> 
> So I think in the current state, only the top waiter would be able to
> both set and clear the yield_to_waiter variable anyway. However, I
> agree
> that this detail is not obvious and it would be better to reset the
> variable here when loop > 1 to make it more readable.

AFAICS an interruptible waiter behind the top waiter receiving a signal
and grabbing the lock could also reset yield_to_waiter incorrectly in
that way, increasing the top waiter's delay arbitrarily.

--Imre

> 
> > > 		break;
> > > 
> > > @@ -581,6 +621,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long
> > > state, unsigned int subclass,
> > >   		spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
> > >   		schedule_preempt_disabled();
> > >   		spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
> > > +		do_yield_to_waiter(lock, loop);
> > >   	}
> > >   	__set_task_state(task, TASK_RUNNING);
> > > 
> > > @@ -590,6 +631,10 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long
> > > state, unsigned int subclass,
> > >   		atomic_set(&lock->count, 0);
> > >   	debug_mutex_free_waiter(&waiter);
> > > 
> > > +#ifndef CONFIG_MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER
> > > +	lock->yield_to_waiter = false;
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> > 
> > Maybe you should do the reset in an inline function instead.
> 
> Yes, this should be abstracted into a function like we do with
> do_yield_to_waiter().
> 
> 
> Jason
>