linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] locking/mutex: Don't hog RCU read lock while optimistically spinning

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: <20200907162031.GA13172@willie-the-truck>
Date:   Mon, 7 Sep 2020 17:20:31 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@...neltoast.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] locking/mutex: Don't hog RCU read lock while
 optimistically spinning

On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 12:16:35PM -0700, Sultan Alsawaf wrote:
> From: Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@...neltoast.com>
> 
> There's no reason to hold an RCU read lock the entire time while
> optimistically spinning for a mutex lock. This can needlessly lengthen
> RCU grace periods and slow down synchronize_rcu() when it doesn't brute
> force the RCU grace period via rcupdate.rcu_expedited=1.

Would be good to demonstrate this with numbers if you can.

> Signed-off-by: Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@...neltoast.com>
> ---
>  kernel/locking/mutex.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> index 5352ce50a97e..cc5676712458 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> @@ -552,21 +552,31 @@ bool mutex_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock, struct task_struct *owner,
>  {
>  	bool ret = true;
>  
> -	rcu_read_lock();
> -	while (__mutex_owner(lock) == owner) {
> +	for (;;) {
> +		unsigned int cpu;
> +		bool same_owner;
> +
>  		/*
> -		 * Ensure we emit the owner->on_cpu, dereference _after_
> -		 * checking lock->owner still matches owner. If that fails,
> +		 * Ensure lock->owner still matches owner. If that fails,
>  		 * owner might point to freed memory. If it still matches,
>  		 * the rcu_read_lock() ensures the memory stays valid.
>  		 */
> -		barrier();
> +		rcu_read_lock();
> +		same_owner = __mutex_owner(lock) == owner;
> +		if (same_owner) {
> +			ret = owner->on_cpu;
> +			if (ret)
> +				cpu = task_cpu(owner);
> +		}
> +		rcu_read_unlock();

Are you sure this doesn't break the ww mutex spinning? That thing also goes
and looks at the owner, but now it's called outside of the read-side
critical section.

Will