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  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:   Sun, 28 Apr 2019 11:57:44 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Subject: [PATCH-tip v6 09/20] locking/rwsem: Always release wait_lock before waking up tasks

With the use of wake_q, we can do task wakeups without holding the
wait_lock. There is one exception in the rwsem code, though. It is
when the writer in the slowpath detects that there are waiters ahead
but the rwsem is not held by a writer. This can lead to a long wait_lock
hold time especially when a large number of readers are to be woken up.

Remediate this situation by releasing the wait_lock before waking up
tasks and re-acquiring it afterward.

Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
---
 include/linux/sched/wake_q.h |  5 +++++
 kernel/locking/rwsem.c       | 30 +++++++++++++++++++-----------
 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/sched/wake_q.h b/include/linux/sched/wake_q.h
index ad826d2a4557..26a2013ac39c 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched/wake_q.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched/wake_q.h
@@ -51,6 +51,11 @@ static inline void wake_q_init(struct wake_q_head *head)
 	head->lastp = &head->first;
 }
 
+static inline bool wake_q_empty(struct wake_q_head *head)
+{
+	return head->first == WAKE_Q_TAIL;
+}
+
 extern void wake_q_add(struct wake_q_head *head, struct task_struct *task);
 extern void wake_q_add_safe(struct wake_q_head *head, struct task_struct *task);
 extern void wake_up_q(struct wake_q_head *head);
diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
index 36e69b773d36..0181f9353a77 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
@@ -748,17 +748,25 @@ rwsem_down_write_slowpath(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int state)
 					? RWSEM_WAKE_READERS
 					: RWSEM_WAKE_ANY, &wake_q);
 
-		/*
-		 * The wakeup is normally called _after_ the wait_lock
-		 * is released, but given that we are proactively waking
-		 * readers we can deal with the wake_q overhead as it is
-		 * similar to releasing and taking the wait_lock again
-		 * for attempting rwsem_try_write_lock().
-		 */
-		wake_up_q(&wake_q);
-
-		/* We need wake_q again below, reinitialize */
-		wake_q_init(&wake_q);
+		if (!wake_q_empty(&wake_q)) {
+			/*
+			 * We want to minimize wait_lock hold time especially
+			 * when a large number of readers are to be woken up.
+			 */
+			raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
+			wake_up_q(&wake_q);
+			wake_q_init(&wake_q);	/* Used again, reinit */
+			raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
+			/*
+			 * This waiter may have become first in the wait
+			 * list after re-acquring the wait_lock. The
+			 * rwsem_first_waiter() test in the main while
+			 * loop below will correctly detect that. We do
+			 * need to reload count to perform proper trylock
+			 * and avoid missed wakeup.
+			 */
+			count = atomic_long_read(&sem->count);
+		}
 	} else {
 		count = atomic_long_add_return(RWSEM_FLAG_WAITERS, &sem->count);
 	}
-- 
2.18.1

Powered by blists - more mailing lists