[patch 15/63] locking: Add base code for RT rw_semaphore and rwlock

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>

On PREEMPT_RT rw_semaphores and rwlocks are substituted with a rtmutex and
a reader count. The implementation is writer unfair as it is not feasible
to do priority inheritance on multiple readers, but experience has shown
that realtime workloads are not the typical workloads which are sensitive
to writer starvation.

The inner workings of rw_semaphores and rwlocks on RT are almost indentical
except for the task state and signal handling. rw_semaphores are not state
preserving over a contention, they are expected to enter and leave with state
== TASK_RUNNING. rwlocks have a mechanism to preserve the state of the task
at entry and restore it after unblocking taking potential non-lock related
wakeups into account. rw_semaphores can also be subject to signal handling
interrupting a blocked state, while rwlocks ignore signals.

To avoid code duplication, provide a shared implementation which takes the
small difference vs. state and signals into account. The code is included
into the relevant rw_semaphore/rwlock base code and compiled for each use
case seperately.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
---
 include/linux/rwbase_rt.h  |   38 ++++++
 kernel/locking/rwbase_rt.c |  263 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 301 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 include/linux/rwbase_rt.h
 create mode 100644 kernel/locking/rwbase_rt.c
---
--- /dev/null
+++ b/include/linux/rwbase_rt.h
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
+#ifndef _LINUX_RW_BASE_RT_H
+#define _LINUX_RW_BASE_RT_H
+
+#include <linux/rtmutex.h>
+#include <linux/atomic.h>
+
+#define READER_BIAS		(1U << 31)
+#define WRITER_BIAS		(1U << 30)
+
+struct rwbase_rt {
+	atomic_t		readers;
+	struct rt_mutex_base	rtmutex;
+};
+
+#define __RWBASE_INITIALIZER(name)				\
+{								\
+	.readers = ATOMIC_INIT(READER_BIAS),			\
+	.rtmutex = __RT_MUTEX_BASE_INITIALIZER(name.rtmutex),	\
+}
+
+#define init_rwbase_rt(rwbase)					\
+	do {							\
+		rt_mutex_base_init(&(rwbase)->rtmutex);		\
+		atomic_set(&(rwbase)->readers, READER_BIAS);	\
+	} while (0)
+
+
+static __always_inline bool rw_base_is_locked(struct rwbase_rt *rwb)
+{
+	return atomic_read(&rwb->readers) != READER_BIAS;
+}
+
+static __always_inline bool rw_base_is_contended(struct rwbase_rt *rwb)
+{
+	return atomic_read(&rwb->readers) > 0;
+}
+#endif
--- /dev/null
+++ b/kernel/locking/rwbase_rt.c
@@ -0,0 +1,263 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
+
+/*
+ * RT-specific reader/writer semaphores and reader/writer locks
+ *
+ * down_write/write_lock()
+ *  1) Lock rtmutex
+ *  2) Remove the reader BIAS to force readers into the slow path
+ *  3) Wait until all readers have left the critical region
+ *  4) Mark it write locked
+ *
+ * up_write/write_unlock()
+ *  1) Remove the write locked marker
+ *  2) Set the reader BIAS so readers can use the fast path again
+ *  3) Unlock rtmutex to release blocked readers
+ *
+ * down_read/read_lock()
+ *  1) Try fast path acquisition (reader BIAS is set)
+ *  2) Take tmutex::wait_lock which protects the writelocked flag
+ *  3) If !writelocked, acquire it for read
+ *  4) If writelocked, block on tmutex
+ *  5) unlock rtmutex, goto 1)
+ *
+ * up_read/read_unlock()
+ *  1) Try fast path release (reader count != 1)
+ *  2) Wake the writer waiting in down_write()/write_lock() #3
+ *
+ * down_read/read_lock()#3 has the consequence, that rw semaphores and rw
+ * locks on RT are not writer fair, but writers, which should be avoided in
+ * RT tasks (think mmap_sem), are subject to the rtmutex priority/DL
+ * inheritance mechanism.
+ *
+ * It's possible to make the rw primitives writer fair by keeping a list of
+ * active readers. A blocked writer would force all newly incoming readers
+ * to block on the rtmutex, but the rtmutex would have to be proxy locked
+ * for one reader after the other. We can't use multi-reader inheritance
+ * because there is no way to support that with SCHED_DEADLINE.
+ * Implementing the one by one reader boosting/handover mechanism is a
+ * major surgery for a very dubious value.
+ *
+ * The risk of writer starvation is there, but the pathological use cases
+ * which trigger it are not necessarily the typical RT workloads.
+ *
+ * Common code shared between RT rw_semaphore and rwlock
+ */
+
+static __always_inline int rwbase_read_trylock(struct rwbase_rt *rwb)
+{
+	int r;
+
+	/*
+	 * Increment reader count, if sem->readers < 0, i.e. READER_BIAS is
+	 * set.
+	 */
+	for (r = atomic_read(&rwb->readers); r < 0;) {
+		if (likely(atomic_try_cmpxchg(&rwb->readers, &r, r + 1)))
+			return 1;
+	}
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static int __sched __rwbase_read_lock(struct rwbase_rt *rwb,
+				      unsigned int state)
+{
+	struct rt_mutex_base *rtm = &rwb->rtmutex;
+	int ret;
+
+	raw_spin_lock_irq(&rtm->wait_lock);
+	/*
+	 * Allow readers as long as the writer has not completely
+	 * acquired the semaphore for write.
+	 */
+	if (atomic_read(&rwb->readers) != WRITER_BIAS) {
+		atomic_inc(&rwb->readers);
+		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&rtm->wait_lock);
+		return 0;
+	}
+
+	/*
+	 * Call into the slow lock path with the rtmutex->wait_lock
+	 * held, so this can't result in the following race:
+	 *
+	 * Reader1		Reader2		Writer
+	 *			down_read()
+	 *					down_write()
+	 *					rtmutex_lock(m)
+	 *					wait()
+	 * down_read()
+	 * unlock(m->wait_lock)
+	 *			up_read()
+	 *			wake(Writer)
+	 *					lock(m->wait_lock)
+	 *					sem->writelocked=true
+	 *					unlock(m->wait_lock)
+	 *
+	 *					up_write()
+	 *					sem->writelocked=false
+	 *					rtmutex_unlock(m)
+	 *			down_read()
+	 *					down_write()
+	 *					rtmutex_lock(m)
+	 *					wait()
+	 * rtmutex_lock(m)
+	 *
+	 * That would put Reader1 behind the writer waiting on
+	 * Reader2 to call up_read() which might be unbound.
+	 */
+
+	/*
+	 * For rwlocks this returns 0 unconditionally, so the below
+	 * !ret conditionals are optimized out.
+	 */
+	ret = rwbase_rtmutex_slowlock_locked(rtm, state);
+
+	/*
+	 * On success the rtmutex is held, so there can't be a writer
+	 * active. Increment the reader count and immediately drop the
+	 * rtmutex again.
+	 *
+	 * rtmutex->wait_lock has to be unlocked in any case of course.
+	 */
+	if (!ret)
+		atomic_inc(&rwb->readers);
+	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&rtm->wait_lock);
+	if (!ret)
+		rwbase_rtmutex_unlock(rtm);
+	return ret;
+}
+
+static __always_inline int rwbase_read_lock(struct rwbase_rt *rwb,
+					    unsigned int state)
+{
+	if (rwbase_read_trylock(rwb))
+		return 0;
+
+	return __rwbase_read_lock(rwb, state);
+}
+
+static void __sched __rwbase_read_unlock(struct rwbase_rt *rwb,
+					 unsigned int state)
+{
+	struct rt_mutex_base *rtm = &rwb->rtmutex;
+	struct task_struct *owner;
+
+	raw_spin_lock_irq(&rtm->wait_lock);
+	/*
+	 * Wake the writer, i.e. the rtmutex owner. It might release the
+	 * rtmutex concurrently in the fast path (due to a signal), but to
+	 * clean up rwb->readers it needs to acquire rtm->wait_lock. The
+	 * worst case which can happen is a spurious wakeup.
+	 */
+	owner = rt_mutex_owner(rtm);
+	if (owner)
+		wake_up_state(owner, state);
+
+	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&rtm->wait_lock);
+}
+
+static __always_inline void rwbase_read_unlock(struct rwbase_rt *rwb,
+					       unsigned int state)
+{
+	/*
+	 * rwb->readers can only hit 0 when a writer is waiting for the
+	 * active readers to leave the critical region.
+	 */
+	if (unlikely(atomic_dec_and_test(&rwb->readers)))
+		__rwbase_read_unlock(rwb, state);
+}
+
+static inline void __rwbase_write_unlock(struct rwbase_rt *rwb, int bias,
+					 unsigned long flags)
+{
+	struct rt_mutex_base *rtm = &rwb->rtmutex;
+
+	atomic_add(READER_BIAS - bias, &rwb->readers);
+	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rtm->wait_lock, flags);
+	rwbase_rtmutex_unlock(rtm);
+}
+
+static inline void rwbase_write_unlock(struct rwbase_rt *rwb)
+{
+	struct rt_mutex_base *rtm = &rwb->rtmutex;
+	unsigned long flags;
+
+	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rtm->wait_lock, flags);
+	__rwbase_write_unlock(rwb, WRITER_BIAS, flags);
+}
+
+static inline void rwbase_write_downgrade(struct rwbase_rt *rwb)
+{
+	struct rt_mutex_base *rtm = &rwb->rtmutex;
+	unsigned long flags;
+
+	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rtm->wait_lock, flags);
+	/* Release it and account current as reader */
+	__rwbase_write_unlock(rwb, WRITER_BIAS - 1, flags);
+}
+
+static int __sched rwbase_write_lock(struct rwbase_rt *rwb,
+				     unsigned int state)
+{
+	struct rt_mutex_base *rtm = &rwb->rtmutex;
+	unsigned long flags;
+
+	/* Take the rtmutex as a first step */
+	if (rwbase_rtmutex_lock_state(rtm, state))
+		return -EINTR;
+
+	/* Force readers into slow path */
+	atomic_sub(READER_BIAS, &rwb->readers);
+
+	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rtm->wait_lock, flags);
+	/*
+	 * set_current_state() for rw_semaphore
+	 * current_save_and_set_rtlock_wait_state() for rwlock
+	 */
+	rwbase_set_and_save_current_state(state);
+
+	/* Block until all readers have left the critical region. */
+	for (; atomic_read(&rwb->readers);) {
+		/* Optimized out for rwlocks */
+		if (rwbase_signal_pending_state(state, current)) {
+			__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
+			__rwbase_write_unlock(rwb, 0, flags);
+			return -EINTR;
+		}
+		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rtm->wait_lock, flags);
+
+		/*
+		 * Schedule and wait for the readers to leave the critical
+		 * section. The last reader leaving it wakes the waiter.
+		 */
+		if (atomic_read(&rwb->readers) != 0)
+			rwbase_schedule();
+		set_current_state(state);
+		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rtm->wait_lock, flags);
+	}
+
+	atomic_set(&rwb->readers, WRITER_BIAS);
+	rwbase_restore_current_state();
+	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rtm->wait_lock, flags);
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static inline int rwbase_write_trylock(struct rwbase_rt *rwb)
+{
+	struct rt_mutex_base *rtm = &rwb->rtmutex;
+	unsigned long flags;
+
+	if (!rwbase_rtmutex_trylock(rtm))
+		return 0;
+
+	atomic_sub(READER_BIAS, &rwb->readers);
+
+	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rtm->wait_lock, flags);
+	if (!atomic_read(&rwb->readers)) {
+		atomic_set(&rwb->readers, WRITER_BIAS);
+		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rtm->wait_lock, flags);
+		return 1;
+	}
+	__rwbase_write_unlock(rwb, 0, flags);
+	return 0;
+}