[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b7ed663e-2b5b-80d7-4039-8995084dd572@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2022 14:30:09 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
mingo@...hat.com, will@...nel.org, boqun.feng@...il.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Gokul krishna Krishnakumar <quic_gokukris@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locking/rwsem: Disable preemption while trying for
rwsem lock
On 9/8/22 14:24, 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 the issues
> at the places where rwsem_{set,clear}_owner() are called.
>
> This also adds lockdep annotation of preemption disable in
> rwsem_{set,clear}_owner() on Peter Z. suggestion.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gokul krishna Krishnakumar <quic_gokukris@...cinc.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Remove preempt disable code in rwsem_try_write_lock_unqueued()
> - Addressed suggestion from Peter Z.
> - Modified commit text
> kernel/locking/rwsem.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> index 65f0262..4487359 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> @@ -133,14 +133,19 @@
> * the owner value concurrently without lock. Read from owner, however,
> * may not need READ_ONCE() as long as the pointer value is only used
> * for comparison and isn't being dereferenced.
> + *
> + * Both rwsem_{set,clear}_owner() functions should be in the same
> + * preempt disable section as the atomic op that changes sem->count.
> */
> static inline void rwsem_set_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> {
> + lockdep_assert_preemption_disabled();
> atomic_long_set(&sem->owner, (long)current);
> }
>
> static inline void rwsem_clear_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> {
> + lockdep_assert_preemption_disabled();
> atomic_long_set(&sem->owner, 0);
> }
>
> @@ -251,13 +256,16 @@ 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;
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -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);
> }
Reviewed-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists