linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] locking/rwsem: Disable preemption while trying for rwsem lock

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: <0aafd6bd-6c4c-bb77-7b33-a6d04ee6e5b3@quicinc.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Sep 2022 21:18:29 +0530
From:   Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:     <mingo@...hat.com>, <will@...nel.org>, <longman@...hat.com>,
        <boqun.feng@...il.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Gokul krishna Krishnakumar" <quic_gokukris@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/rwsem: Disable preemption while trying for rwsem
 lock

Hi Peter,

Thanks for your time in reviewing this patch.

On 9/8/2022 8:02 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 03:58:10PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
>> From: Gokul krishna Krishnakumar <quic_gokukris@...cinc.com>
>>
>> Make the region inside the rwsem_write_trylock non preemptible.
>>
>> We observe RT task is hogging CPU when trying to acquire rwsem lock
>> which was acquired by a kworker task but before the rwsem owner was set.
>>
>> Here is the scenario:
>> 1. CFS task (affined to a particular CPU) takes rwsem lock.
>>
>> 2. CFS task gets preempted by a RT task before setting owner.
>>
>> 3. RT task (FIFO) is trying to acquire the lock, but spinning until
>> RT throttling happens for the lock as the lock was taken by CFS task.
>>
>> This patch attempts to fix the above issue by disabling preemption
>> until owner is set for the lock. while at it also fix this issue
>> at the place where owner being set/cleared.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gokul krishna Krishnakumar <quic_gokukris@...cinc.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>
> 
> This is not a valid SoB chain.

Since this patch of adding preempt disable() at rwsem_write_trylock() is 
originated from Gokul.

Would be adding him in
Original-patch-by: Gokul krishna Krishnakumar <quic_gokukris@...cinc.com>

Convert myself to the author/SoB.

Would that be fine ?  please suggest.

> 
>> ---
>>   kernel/locking/rwsem.c | 18 ++++++++++++++----
>>   1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
>> index 65f0262..3b4b32e 100644
>> --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
>> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
>> @@ -251,13 +251,16 @@ static inline bool rwsem_read_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem, long *cntp)
>>   static inline bool rwsem_write_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>>   {
>>   	long tmp = RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE;
>> +	bool ret = false;
>>   
>> +	preempt_disable();
>>   	if (atomic_long_try_cmpxchg_acquire(&sem->count, &tmp, RWSEM_WRITER_LOCKED)) {
>>   		rwsem_set_owner(sem);
>> -		return true;
>> +		ret = true;
>>   	}
>>   
>> -	return false;
>> +	preempt_enable();
>> +	return ret;
>>   }
>>   
>>   /*
> 
> Yes, this part looks ok.
> 
>> @@ -686,16 +689,21 @@ enum owner_state {
>>   static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock_unqueued(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>>   {
>>   	long count = atomic_long_read(&sem->count);
>> +	bool ret = false;
>>   
>> +	preempt_disable();
>>   	while (!(count & (RWSEM_LOCK_MASK|RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF))) {
>>   		if (atomic_long_try_cmpxchg_acquire(&sem->count, &count,
>>   					count | RWSEM_WRITER_LOCKED)) {
>>   			rwsem_set_owner(sem);
>>   			lockevent_inc(rwsem_opt_lock);
>> -			return true;
>> +			ret = true;
>> +			break;
>>   		}
>>   	}
>> -	return false;
>> +
>> +	preempt_enable();
>> +	return ret;
>>   }
>>   
> 
> This one I can't follow; afaict this is only called with preemption
> already disabled.

Agreed. Will remove it in v2.

> 
>>   static inline bool rwsem_can_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>> @@ -1352,8 +1360,10 @@ static inline void __up_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>>   	DEBUG_RWSEMS_WARN_ON((rwsem_owner(sem) != current) &&
>>   			    !rwsem_test_oflags(sem, RWSEM_NONSPINNABLE), sem);
>>   
>> +	preempt_disable();
>>   	rwsem_clear_owner(sem);
>>   	tmp = atomic_long_fetch_add_release(-RWSEM_WRITER_LOCKED, &sem->count);
>> +	preempt_enable();
>>   	if (unlikely(tmp & RWSEM_FLAG_WAITERS))
>>   		rwsem_wake(sem);
>>   }
> 
> Yep, that looks good again.
> 
> Perhaps the thing to do would be to add:
> 
>    lockdep_assert_preemption_disabled()
> 
> to rwsem_{set,clear}_owner() and expand the comment there to explain
> that these functions should be in the same preempt-disable section as
> the atomic op that changes sem->count.

Thanks for the suggestion, will add it in v2.

-Mukesh