[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <70523e24-755f-f6ae-f665-78e6f5eef575@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:37:43 -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 09:33, Waiman Long wrote:
> 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?
>
I am planning to post additional patches on top to rework the handoff
code sometimes next week, but I will keep these fix patches for the
stable releases.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists