linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 8/8] locking/rwsem: Restore old write lock slow path behavior

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20230328140259.GF4253@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 28 Mar 2023 16:02:59 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 8/8] locking/rwsem: Restore old write lock slow path
 behavior

On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 04:24:13PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:

>  kernel/locking/rwsem.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> index 7bd26e64827a..cf9dc1e250e0 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> @@ -426,6 +426,7 @@ rwsem_waiter_wake(struct rwsem_waiter *waiter, struct wake_q_head *wake_q)
>  static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
>  					struct rwsem_waiter *waiter)
>  {
> +	bool first = (rwsem_first_waiter(sem) == waiter);
>  	long count, new;
>  
>  	lockdep_assert_held(&sem->wait_lock);
> @@ -434,6 +435,9 @@ static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
>  	do {
>  		new = count;
>  
> +		if (!first && (count & (RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF | RWSEM_LOCK_MASK)))
> +			return false;
> +
>  		if (count & RWSEM_LOCK_MASK) {
>  			/*
>  			 * A waiter (first or not) can set the handoff bit

I couldn't immediately make sense of the above, and I think there's case
where not-first would still want to set handoff you're missing.

After a few detours, I ended up with the below; does that make sense or
did I just make a bigger mess? (entirely possible due to insufficient
sleep etc..).


--- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
@@ -426,12 +426,27 @@ rwsem_waiter_wake(struct rwsem_waiter *w
 static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
 					struct rwsem_waiter *waiter)
 {
+	bool first = (rwsem_first_waiter(sem) == waiter);
 	long count, new;
 
 	lockdep_assert_held(&sem->wait_lock);
 
 	count = atomic_long_read(&sem->count);
 	do {
+		/*
+		 * first handoff
+		 *
+		 *   0     0     | take
+		 *   0     1     | not take
+		 *   1     0     | take
+		 *   1     1     | take
+		 *
+		 */
+		bool handoff = count & RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF;
+
+		if (!first && handoff)
+			return false;
+
 		new = count;
 
 		if (count & RWSEM_LOCK_MASK) {
@@ -440,7 +455,7 @@ static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock(
 			 * if it is an RT task or wait in the wait queue
 			 * for too long.
 			 */
-			if ((count & RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF) ||
+			if (handoff ||
 			    (!rt_task(waiter->task) &&
 			     !time_after(jiffies, waiter->timeout)))
 				return false;
@@ -501,11 +516,19 @@ static void rwsem_writer_wake(struct rw_
 		 */
 		list_del(&waiter->list);
 		atomic_long_set(&sem->owner, (long)waiter->task);
-
-	} else if (!rwsem_try_write_lock(sem, waiter))
+		rwsem_waiter_wake(waiter, wake_q);
 		return;
+	}
 
-	rwsem_waiter_wake(waiter, wake_q);
+	/*
+	 * Mark writer at the front of the queue for wakeup.
+	 *
+	 * Until the task is actually awoken later by the caller, other writers
+	 * are able to steal it. Readers, on the other hand, will block as they
+	 * will notice the queued writer.
+	 */
+	wake_q_add(wake_q, waiter->task);
+	lockevent_inc(rwsem_wake_writer);
 }
 
 static void rwsem_reader_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
@@ -1038,6 +1061,25 @@ rwsem_waiter_wait(struct rw_semaphore *s
 			/* Matches rwsem_waiter_wake()'s smp_store_release(). */
 			break;
 		}
+		if (!reader) {
+			/*
+			 * If rwsem_writer_wake() did not take the lock, we must
+			 * rwsem_try_write_lock() here.
+			 */
+			raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
+			if (waiter->task && rwsem_try_write_lock(sem, waiter)) {
+				waiter->task = NULL;
+				raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
+				break;
+			}
+			raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
+
+			if (waiter->handoff_set)
+				rwsem_spin_on_owner(sem);
+
+			if (!smp_load_acquire(&waiter->task))
+				break;
+		}
 		if (signal_pending_state(state, current)) {
 			raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
 			if (waiter->task)