From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 14/16] locking/rwsem: Guard against making count negative
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 16:17:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190423141714.GO11158@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7b1bfc26-6e90-bd65-ab46-08413acd80e9@redhat.com>
On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 05:07:56PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> How about the following chunks to disable preemption temporarily for the
> increment-check-decrement sequence?
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/preempt.h b/include/linux/preempt.h
> index dd92b1a93919..4cc03ac66e13 100644
> --- a/include/linux/preempt.h
> +++ b/include/linux/preempt.h
> @@ -250,6 +250,8 @@ do { \
> #define preempt_enable_notrace() barrier()
> #define preemptible() 0
>
> +#define __preempt_disable_nop /* preempt_disable() is nop */
> +
> #endif /* CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT */
>
> #ifdef MODULE
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> index 043fd29b7534..54029e6af17b 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> @@ -256,11 +256,64 @@ static inline struct task_struct
> *rwsem_get_owner(struct r
> return (struct task_struct *) (cowner
> ? cowner | (sowner & RWSEM_NONSPINNABLE) : sowner);
> }
> +
> +/*
> + * If __preempt_disable_nop is defined, calling preempt_disable() and
> + * preempt_enable() directly is the most efficient way. Otherwise, it may
> + * be more efficient to disable and enable interrupt instead for disabling
> + * preemption tempoarily.
> + */
> +#ifdef __preempt_disable_nop
> +#define disable_preemption() preempt_disable()
> +#define enable_preemption() preempt_enable()
> +#else
> +#define disable_preemption() local_irq_disable()
> +#define enable_preemption() local_irq_enable()
> +#endif
I'm not aware of an architecture where disabling interrupts is faster
than disabling preemption.
> +/*
> + * When the owner task structure pointer is merged into couunt, less bits
> + * will be available for readers. Therefore, there is a very slight chance
> + * that the reader count may overflow. We try to prevent that from
> happening
> + * by checking for the MS bit of the count and failing the trylock attempt
> + * if this bit is set.
> + *
> + * With preemption enabled, there is a remote possibility that preemption
> + * can happen in the narrow timing window between incrementing and
> + * decrementing the reader count and the task is put to sleep for a
> + * considerable amount of time. If sufficient number of such unfortunate
> + * sequence of events happen, we may still overflow the reader count.
> + * To avoid such possibility, we have to disable preemption for the
> + * whole increment-check-decrement sequence.
> + *
> + * The function returns true if there are too many readers and the count
> + * has already been properly decremented so the reader must go directly
> + * into the wait list.
> + */
> +static inline bool rwsem_read_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem, long *cnt)
> +{
> + bool wait = false; /* Wait now flag */
> +
> + disable_preemption();
> + *cnt = atomic_long_fetch_add_acquire(RWSEM_READER_BIAS,
> &sem->count);
> + if (unlikely(*cnt < 0)) {
> + atomic_long_add(-RWSEM_READER_BIAS, &sem->count);
> + wait = true;
> + }
> + enable_preemption();
> + return wait;
> +}
> #else /* !CONFIG_RWSEM_OWNER_COUNT */
This also means you have to ensure CONFIG_NR_CPUS < 32K for
RWSEM_OWNER_COUNT.
> static inline struct task_struct *rwsem_get_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> {
> return READ_ONCE(sem->owner);
> }
> +
> +static inline bool rwsem_read_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem, long *cnt)
> +{
> + *cnt = atomic_long_fetch_add_acquire(RWSEM_READER_BIAS,
> &sem->count);
> + return false;
> +}
> #endif /* CONFIG_RWSEM_OWNER_COUNT */
>
> /*
> @@ -981,32 +1034,18 @@ static inline void clear_wr_nonspinnable(struct
> rw_semaph
> * Wait for the read lock to be granted
> */
> static struct rw_semaphore __sched *
> -rwsem_down_read_slowpath(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int state, long count)
> +rwsem_down_read_slowpath(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int state, const
> bool wait)
> {
> - long adjustment = -RWSEM_READER_BIAS;
> + long count, adjustment = -RWSEM_READER_BIAS;
> bool wake = false;
> struct rwsem_waiter waiter;
> DEFINE_WAKE_Q(wake_q);
>
> - if (unlikely(count < 0)) {
> + if (unlikely(wait)) {
> /*
> - * The sign bit has been set meaning that too many active
> - * readers are present. We need to decrement reader count &
> - * enter wait queue immediately to avoid overflowing the
> - * reader count.
> - *
> - * As preemption is not disabled, there is a remote
> - * possibility that preemption can happen in the narrow
> - * timing window between incrementing and decrementing
> - * the reader count and the task is put to sleep for a
> - * considerable amount of time. If sufficient number
> - * of such unfortunate sequence of events happen, we
> - * may still overflow the reader count. It is extremely
> - * unlikey, though. If this is a concern, we should consider
> - * disable preemption during this timing window to make
> - * sure that such unfortunate event will not happen.
> + * The reader count has already been decremented and the
> + * reader should go directly into the wait list now.
> */
> - atomic_long_add(-RWSEM_READER_BIAS, &sem->count);
> adjustment = 0;
> goto queue;
> }
> @@ -1358,11 +1397,12 @@ static struct rw_semaphore
> *rwsem_downgrade_wake(struct
> */
> inline void __down_read(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> {
> - long tmp = atomic_long_fetch_add_acquire(RWSEM_READER_BIAS,
> - &sem->count);
> + long tmp;
> + bool wait;
>
> + wait = rwsem_read_trylock(sem, &tmp);
> if (unlikely(tmp & RWSEM_READ_FAILED_MASK)) {
> - rwsem_down_read_slowpath(sem, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, tmp);
> + rwsem_down_read_slowpath(sem, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, wait);
> DEBUG_RWSEMS_WARN_ON(!is_rwsem_reader_owned(sem), sem);
> } else {
> rwsem_set_reader_owned(sem);
I think I prefer that function returning/taking the bias/adjustment
value instead of a bool, if it is all the same.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-23 14:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 112+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-13 17:22 [PATCH v4 00/16] locking/rwsem: Rwsem rearchitecture part 2 Waiman Long
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 01/16] locking/rwsem: Prevent unneeded warning during locking selftest Waiman Long
2019-04-18 8:04 ` [tip:locking/core] " tip-bot for Waiman Long
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 02/16] locking/rwsem: Make owner available even if !CONFIG_RWSEM_SPIN_ON_OWNER Waiman Long
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 03/16] locking/rwsem: Remove rwsem_wake() wakeup optimization Waiman Long
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 04/16] locking/rwsem: Implement a new locking scheme Waiman Long
2019-04-16 13:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-16 13:32 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-16 14:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-16 14:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 05/16] locking/rwsem: Merge rwsem.h and rwsem-xadd.c into rwsem.c Waiman Long
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 06/16] locking/rwsem: Code cleanup after files merging Waiman Long
2019-04-16 16:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-16 16:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-16 19:45 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 07/16] locking/rwsem: Implement lock handoff to prevent lock starvation Waiman Long
2019-04-16 14:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-16 20:26 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-16 21:07 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-17 7:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 16:22 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-16 15:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-16 16:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-16 18:41 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-16 18:16 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-16 18:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 7:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 16:35 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-17 8:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 16:39 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-18 8:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 8:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 08/16] locking/rwsem: Make rwsem_spin_on_owner() return owner state Waiman Long
2019-04-17 9:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 16:42 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-17 10:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 16:53 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-17 12:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 12:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 18:29 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-18 8:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 13:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 18:50 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 09/16] locking/rwsem: Ensure an RT task will not spin on reader Waiman Long
2019-04-17 13:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 18:47 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-18 8:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-18 13:27 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 10/16] locking/rwsem: Wake up almost all readers in wait queue Waiman Long
2019-04-16 16:50 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-04-16 17:37 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-17 13:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 17:16 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 11/16] locking/rwsem: Enable readers spinning on writer Waiman Long
2019-04-17 13:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 17:34 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-18 8:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-18 14:35 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-17 13:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 17:45 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-18 9:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-18 13:40 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-17 14:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 17:51 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-18 9:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-18 14:37 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 12/16] locking/rwsem: Enable time-based spinning on reader-owned rwsem Waiman Long
2019-04-18 13:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-18 15:15 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-19 7:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-19 14:33 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-19 15:36 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 13/16] locking/rwsem: Add more rwsem owner access helpers Waiman Long
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 14/16] locking/rwsem: Guard against making count negative Waiman Long
2019-04-18 13:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-18 14:08 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-18 14:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-18 14:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-18 14:54 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-19 10:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-19 12:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-19 13:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-19 13:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-19 19:39 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-21 21:07 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-23 14:17 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2019-04-23 14:31 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-23 16:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-04-23 19:12 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-23 19:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-23 19:41 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-23 19:55 ` [PATCH] bpf: Fix preempt_enable_no_resched() abuse Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-23 20:03 ` [PATCH] trace: " Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-23 23:58 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-04-29 6:39 ` [tip:sched/core] " tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-29 13:31 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-04-29 14:08 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-23 20:27 ` [PATCH] bpf: " Linus Torvalds
2019-04-23 20:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-23 20:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-04-24 13:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-25 21:23 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-04-26 7:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-24 7:09 ` [PATCH v4 14/16] locking/rwsem: Guard against making count negative Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-24 16:49 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-24 17:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-24 17:10 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-24 17:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 15/16] locking/rwsem: Merge owner into count on x86-64 Waiman Long
2019-04-18 14:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-18 14:40 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 16/16] locking/rwsem: Remove redundant computation of writer lock word Waiman Long
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=20190423141714.GO11158@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=llong@redhat.com \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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).