From: Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
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 10:31:42 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a2baa104-6526-a129-0409-e66ebc098e2a@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190423141714.GO11158@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 4/23/19 10:17 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.
I have actually done some performance test measuring the effects of
disabling interrupt and preemption on readers (on x86-64 system).
Threads Before patch Disable irq Disable preemption
------- ------------ ----------- ------------------
1 9,088 8,766 9,172
2 9,296 9,169 8,707
4 11,192 11,205 10,712
8 11,329 11,332 11,213
For uncontended case, disable interrupt is slower. The slowdown is gone
once the rwsem becomes contended. So it may not be a good idea to
disable interrupt as a proxy of disabling preemption.
BTW, preemption count is not enabled in typical distro production
kernels like RHEL. So preempt_disable() is just a barrier. It is turned
on in the debug kernel, though.
>> +/*
>> + * 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.
Yes, that can be done.
>
>> 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.
Sure, I can do that.
Cheers,
Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-23 14:31 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
2019-04-23 14:31 ` Waiman Long [this message]
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=a2baa104-6526-a129-0409-e66ebc098e2a@redhat.com \
--to=llong@redhat.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--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).