[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ee1ea64f-f4b3-15b2-b46c-9b8ad7217962@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2022 09:33:17 -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>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, john.p.donnelly@...cle.com,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>,
Ting11 Wang 王婷 <wangting11@...omi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] locking/rwsem: Prevent non-first waiter from
spinning in down_write() slowpath
On 10/13/22 06:02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 09:33:32AM -0400, 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.
>>
> So why not do a better handoff? Specifically, have the owner set owner
> to first-waiter instead of NULL ? (like the normal mutex code)
I understand your desire to make the rwsem handoff process more like
what mutex is currently doing. I certainly think it is doable and will
put this in my todo list. However, that needs to be done at unlock and
wakeup time. I expect that will require moderate amount of code changes
which will make it not that suitable for backporting to the stable releases.
I would like to see these simple fixes get merged first and then we can
work on a major revamp of the handoff code. What do you think?
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists