[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f2778291-38a8-457f-d61e-0f9f7d401075@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 16:15:26 -0500
From: John Donnelly <john.p.donnelly@...cle.com>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>,
John Donnelly <john.p.donnelly@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/rwsem: Prevent non-first waiter from spinning in
down_write() slowpath
On 9/29/22 13:04, Waiman Long wrote:
> A non-first waiter can potentially spin in the for loop of
> rwsem_down_write_slowpath() without sleeping but fail to acquire the
> lock even if the rwsem is free if the following sequence happens:
>
> Non-first waiter First waiter Lock holder
> ---------------- ------------ -----------
> Acquire wait_lock
> rwsem_try_write_lock():
> Set handoff bit if RT or
> wait too long
> Set waiter->handoff_set
> Release wait_lock
> Acquire wait_lock
> Inherit waiter->handoff_set
> Release wait_lock
> Clear owner
> Release lock
> if (waiter.handoff_set) {
> rwsem_spin_on_owner(();
> if (OWNER_NULL)
> goto trylock_again;
> }
> trylock_again:
> Acquire wait_lock
> rwsem_try_write_lock():
> if (first->handoff_set && (waiter != first))
> return false;
> Release wait_lock
>
> It is especially problematic if the non-first waiter is an RT task and
> it is running on the same CPU as the first waiter as this can lead to
> live lock.
>
> Fixes: d257cc8cb8d5 ("locking/rwsem: Make handoff bit handling more consistent")
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
> ---
> kernel/locking/rwsem.c | 13 ++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> index 65f0262f635e..ad676e99e0b3 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> @@ -628,6 +628,11 @@ static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
> new = count;
>
> if (count & RWSEM_LOCK_MASK) {
> + /*
> + * A waiter (first or not) can set the handoff bit
> + * if it is an RT task or wait in the wait queue
> + * for too long.
> + */
> if (has_handoff || (!rt_task(waiter->task) &&
> !time_after(jiffies, waiter->timeout)))
> return false;
> @@ -643,11 +648,13 @@ static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
> } while (!atomic_long_try_cmpxchg_acquire(&sem->count, &count, new));
>
> /*
> - * We have either acquired the lock with handoff bit cleared or
> - * set the handoff bit.
> + * We have either acquired the lock with handoff bit cleared or set
> + * the handoff bit. Only the first waiter can have its handoff_set
> + * set here to enable optimistic spinning in slowpath loop.
> */
> if (new & RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF) {
> - waiter->handoff_set = true;
> + if (waiter == first)
> + waiter->handoff_set = true;
> lockevent_inc(rwsem_wlock_handoff);
> return false;
> }
Hi,.
Are you missing
[PATCH 5.18 87/88] locking/rwsem: Allow slowpath writer to ignore
handoff bit if not set by first waiter
Fixes: d257cc8cb8d5 ("locking/rwsem: Make handoff bit handling more
consistent")
Or is this another regression ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists