| 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: <162923124867.25758.16331379250721685764.tip-bot2@tip-bot2>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2021 20:14:08 -0000
From: "tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra" <tip-bot2@...utronix.de>
To: linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc: "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [tip: locking/core] locking/ww_mutex: Add RT priority to W/W order
The following commit has been merged into the locking/core branch of tip:
Commit-ID: 8850d773703f8114d7c8a2421fd20bde8a558f96
Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/8850d773703f8114d7c8a2421fd20bde8a558f96
Author: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
AuthorDate: Sun, 15 Aug 2021 23:28:55 +02:00
Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CommitterDate: Tue, 17 Aug 2021 19:05:08 +02:00
locking/ww_mutex: Add RT priority to W/W order
RT mutex based ww_mutexes cannot order based on timestamps. They have to
order based on priority. Add the necessary decision logic.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210815211304.847536630@linutronix.de
---
kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h b/kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h
index 7da9890..2dce4f0 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h
+++ b/kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h
@@ -219,19 +219,54 @@ ww_mutex_lock_acquired(struct ww_mutex *ww, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx)
}
/*
- * Determine if context @a is 'after' context @b. IOW, @a is a younger
- * transaction than @b and depending on algorithm either needs to wait for
- * @b or die.
+ * Determine if @a is 'less' than @b. IOW, either @a is a lower priority task
+ * or, when of equal priority, a younger transaction than @b.
+ *
+ * Depending on the algorithm, @a will either need to wait for @b, or die.
*/
static inline bool
-__ww_ctx_stamp_after(struct ww_acquire_ctx *a, struct ww_acquire_ctx *b)
+__ww_ctx_less(struct ww_acquire_ctx *a, struct ww_acquire_ctx *b)
{
+/*
+ * Can only do the RT prio for WW_RT, because task->prio isn't stable due to PI,
+ * so the wait_list ordering will go wobbly. rt_mutex re-queues the waiter and
+ * isn't affected by this.
+ */
+#ifdef WW_RT
+ /* kernel prio; less is more */
+ int a_prio = a->task->prio;
+ int b_prio = b->task->prio;
+
+ if (rt_prio(a_prio) || rt_prio(b_prio)) {
+
+ if (a_prio > b_prio)
+ return true;
+
+ if (a_prio < b_prio)
+ return false;
+
+ /* equal static prio */
+
+ if (dl_prio(a_prio)) {
+ if (dl_time_before(b->task->dl.deadline,
+ a->task->dl.deadline))
+ return true;
+
+ if (dl_time_before(a->task->dl.deadline,
+ b->task->dl.deadline))
+ return false;
+ }
+
+ /* equal prio */
+ }
+#endif
+ /* FIFO order tie break -- bigger is younger */
return (signed long)(a->stamp - b->stamp) > 0;
}
/*
- * Wait-Die; wake a younger waiter context (when locks held) such that it can
+ * Wait-Die; wake a lesser waiter context (when locks held) such that it can
* die.
*
* Among waiters with context, only the first one can have other locks acquired
@@ -245,8 +280,7 @@ __ww_mutex_die(struct MUTEX *lock, struct MUTEX_WAITER *waiter,
if (!ww_ctx->is_wait_die)
return false;
- if (waiter->ww_ctx->acquired > 0 &&
- __ww_ctx_stamp_after(waiter->ww_ctx, ww_ctx)) {
+ if (waiter->ww_ctx->acquired > 0 && __ww_ctx_less(waiter->ww_ctx, ww_ctx)) {
#ifndef WW_RT
debug_mutex_wake_waiter(lock, waiter);
#endif
@@ -257,10 +291,10 @@ __ww_mutex_die(struct MUTEX *lock, struct MUTEX_WAITER *waiter,
}
/*
- * Wound-Wait; wound a younger @hold_ctx if it holds the lock.
+ * Wound-Wait; wound a lesser @hold_ctx if it holds the lock.
*
- * Wound the lock holder if there are waiters with older transactions than
- * the lock holders. Even if multiple waiters may wound the lock holder,
+ * Wound the lock holder if there are waiters with more important transactions
+ * than the lock holders. Even if multiple waiters may wound the lock holder,
* it's sufficient that only one does.
*/
static bool __ww_mutex_wound(struct MUTEX *lock,
@@ -287,7 +321,7 @@ static bool __ww_mutex_wound(struct MUTEX *lock,
if (!owner)
return false;
- if (ww_ctx->acquired > 0 && __ww_ctx_stamp_after(hold_ctx, ww_ctx)) {
+ if (ww_ctx->acquired > 0 && __ww_ctx_less(hold_ctx, ww_ctx)) {
hold_ctx->wounded = 1;
/*
@@ -306,8 +340,8 @@ static bool __ww_mutex_wound(struct MUTEX *lock,
}
/*
- * We just acquired @lock under @ww_ctx, if there are later contexts waiting
- * behind us on the wait-list, check if they need to die, or wound us.
+ * We just acquired @lock under @ww_ctx, if there are more important contexts
+ * waiting behind us on the wait-list, check if they need to die, or wound us.
*
* See __ww_mutex_add_waiter() for the list-order construction; basically the
* list is ordered by stamp, smallest (oldest) first.
@@ -421,7 +455,7 @@ __ww_mutex_check_kill(struct MUTEX *lock, struct MUTEX_WAITER *waiter,
return 0;
}
- if (hold_ctx && __ww_ctx_stamp_after(ctx, hold_ctx))
+ if (hold_ctx && __ww_ctx_less(ctx, hold_ctx))
return __ww_mutex_kill(lock, ctx);
/*
@@ -479,7 +513,7 @@ __ww_mutex_add_waiter(struct MUTEX_WAITER *waiter,
if (!cur->ww_ctx)
continue;
- if (__ww_ctx_stamp_after(ww_ctx, cur->ww_ctx)) {
+ if (__ww_ctx_less(ww_ctx, cur->ww_ctx)) {
/*
* Wait-Die: if we find an older context waiting, there
* is no point in queueing behind it, as we'd have to
Powered by blists - more mailing lists