From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Yongji Xie <elohimes@gmail.com>,
mingo@redhat.com, will.deacon@arm.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xieyongji@baidu.com,
zhangyu31@baidu.com, liuqi16@baidu.com, yuanlinsi01@baidu.com,
nixun@baidu.com, lilin24@baidu.com,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC] locking/rwsem: Avoid issuing wakeup before setting the reader waiter to nil
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 18:27:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181129172700.GA11632@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8cc45695-b325-a219-8b46-d5da6ddfdd63@redhat.com>
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 12:02:19PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 11/29/2018 11:06 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Why; at that point we know the wakeup will happen after, which is all we
> > require.
> >
> Thread 1 Thread 2 Thread 3
>
> rwsem_down_read_failed()
> raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> list_add_tail(&waiter.list, &wait_list);
> raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> __rwsem_mark_wake();
> wake_q_add();
> wake_up_q();
> waiter->task =
> NULL; --+
> while (true)
> { |
>
> set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> |
> if (!waiter.task) //
> false |
>
> break; |
>
> schedule();
> |
> }
> <-----+
> wake_up_q(&wake_q);
I think that thing is horribly whitespace damanaged. At least, it's not
making sense to me.
> OK, I got confused by the thread racing chart shown in the patch. It
> will be clearer if the clearing of waiter->task is moved down as shown.
> Otherwise, moving the clearing of waiter->task before wake_q_add() won't
> make a difference. So the patch can be a possible fix.
>
> Still we are talking about 3 threads racing with each other. The
> clearing of wake_q.next in wake_up_q() is not atomic and it is hard to
> predict the racing result of the concurrent wake_q operations between
> threads 2 and 3. The essence of my tentative patch is to prevent the
> concurrent wake_q operations in the first place.
wake_up_q() should, per the barriers in wake_up_process, ensure that if
wake_a_add() fails, there will be a wakeup of that task after that
point.
So if we put wake_up_q() at the location where wake_up_process() should
be, it should all work.
The bug in question is that it can happen at any time after
wake_q_add(), not necessarily at wake_up_q().
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-29 17:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-29 12:50 [RFC] locking/rwsem: Avoid issuing wakeup before setting the reader waiter to nil Yongji Xie
2018-11-29 13:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-29 13:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-29 14:02 ` Yongji Xie
2018-11-29 18:43 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2018-11-29 18:49 ` Waiman Long
2018-11-29 15:21 ` Waiman Long
2018-11-29 15:29 ` Waiman Long
2018-11-29 16:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-29 17:02 ` Waiman Long
2018-11-29 17:27 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2018-11-29 17:58 ` Waiman Long
2018-11-29 18:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-29 18:17 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2018-11-29 18:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-29 18:26 ` Waiman Long
2018-11-29 18:31 ` Will Deacon
2018-11-29 18:34 ` Waiman Long
2018-11-29 22:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-30 9:34 ` 答复: " Liu,Qi(ACU-T1)
2018-11-30 14:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-29 21:30 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2018-11-29 21:34 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2018-11-29 22:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-30 9:30 ` Andrea Parri
2018-12-03 5:31 ` [PATCH -tip] kernel/sched,wake_q: Branch predict wake_q_add() cmpxchg Davidlohr Bueso
2018-12-03 16:10 ` Waiman Long
2019-01-21 11:28 ` [tip:locking/core] sched/wake_q: Add branch prediction hint to " tip-bot for Davidlohr Bueso
2018-12-10 15:12 ` [RFC] locking/rwsem: Avoid issuing wakeup before setting the reader waiter to nil Yongji Xie
2018-12-17 11:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-12-17 13:12 ` Yongji Xie
2019-01-07 14:35 ` Waiman Long
2019-01-07 15:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-07 15:35 ` Waiman Long
2018-12-17 20:53 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2018-12-18 13:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-12-18 13:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-12-18 17:27 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2018-12-18 18:54 ` [PATCH v2] sched/wake_q: Reduce reference counting for special users Davidlohr Bueso
2018-12-18 19:17 ` Waiman Long
2018-12-18 19:30 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2018-12-18 19:39 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2018-12-18 19:53 ` [PATCH v4] " Davidlohr Bueso
2018-12-18 20:35 ` Waiman Long
2019-01-21 16:02 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-01-22 8:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-04 8:57 ` [tip:locking/core] " tip-bot for Davidlohr Bueso
2019-02-07 19:30 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-02-12 14:14 ` Daniel Vacek
2019-01-21 11:28 ` [tip:locking/core] locking/rwsem: Fix (possible) missed wakeup tip-bot for Xie Yongji
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181129172700.GA11632@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=elohimes@gmail.com \
--cc=lilin24@baidu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=liuqi16@baidu.com \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=nixun@baidu.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=xieyongji@baidu.com \
--cc=yuanlinsi01@baidu.com \
--cc=zhangyu31@baidu.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).