[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <998fd708-df53-7141-182e-6cbc02cd7819@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 21:09:58 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: John Donnelly <john.p.donnelly@...cle.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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/rwsem: Prevent non-first waiter from spinning in
down_write() slowpath
On 9/29/22 17:15, John Donnelly wrote:
> 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 ?
>
It is another regression which.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists