linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] locking/qrwlock: Reduce cacheline contention for rwlocks used in interrupt context

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: <7eff9889-56fe-503c-94ea-376054c6579b@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 May 2022 08:44:55 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] locking/qrwlock: Reduce cacheline contention for
 rwlocks used in interrupt context

On 5/11/22 04:30, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 03:21:34PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> Even though qrwlock is supposed to be a fair lock, it does allow readers
>> from interrupt context to spin on the lock until it can acquire it making
>> it not as fair. This exception was added due to the requirement to allow
>> recursive read lock in interrupt context. This can also be achieved by
>> just ignoring the writer waiting bit without spinning on the lock.
>>
>> By making this change, we make qrwlock a bit more fair and eliminating
>> the problem of cacheline bouncing for rwlocks that are used heavily in
>> interrupt context, like the networking stack. This should also reduce
>> the chance of lock starvation for those interrupt context rwlocks.
>> diff --git a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
>> index 2e1600906c9f..d52d13e95600 100644
>> --- a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
>> +++ b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
>> @@ -18,21 +18,16 @@
>>    * queued_read_lock_slowpath - acquire read lock of a queued rwlock
>>    * @lock: Pointer to queued rwlock structure
>>    */
>> -void queued_read_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock)
>> +void queued_read_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock, int cnts)
>>   {
>>   	/*
>> -	 * Readers come here when they cannot get the lock without waiting
>> +	 * Readers come here when they cannot get the lock without waiting.
>> +	 * Readers in interrupt context can steal the lock immediately
>> +	 * if the writer is just waiting (not holding the lock yet).
>>   	 */
>> -	if (unlikely(in_interrupt())) {
>> -		/*
>> -		 * Readers in interrupt context will get the lock immediately
>> -		 * if the writer is just waiting (not holding the lock yet),
>> -		 * so spin with ACQUIRE semantics until the lock is available
>> -		 * without waiting in the queue.
>> -		 */
>> -		atomic_cond_read_acquire(&lock->cnts, !(VAL & _QW_LOCKED));
>> +	if (unlikely(!(cnts & _QW_LOCKED) && in_interrupt()))
>>   		return;
>> -	}
>> +
>>   	atomic_sub(_QR_BIAS, &lock->cnts);
>>   
>>   	trace_contention_begin(lock, LCB_F_SPIN | LCB_F_READ);
> I'm confused; prior to this change:
>
> 	CPU0			CPU1
>
> 	write_lock_irq(&l)
> 				read_lock(&l)
> 				<INRQ>
> 				  read_lock(&l)
> 				  ...
>
> was not deadlock, but now it would AFAICT.

Oh you are right. I missed that scenario in my analysis. My bad.

Please scrap this patch. Patch 1 is just an update to the comment and so 
is still applicable.

Thanks,
Longman