From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S932160AbcJMPQM (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:16:12 -0400
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:51080 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1752729AbcJMPQE (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:16:04 -0400
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 16:14:47 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>, Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com>,
        Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>, Terry Rudd <terry.rudd@hpe.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>, Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>,
        Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4 5/8] locking/mutex: Add lock handoff to avoid
 starvation
Message-ID: <20161013151447.GA13138@arm.com>
References: <20161007145243.361481786@infradead.org>
 <20161007150211.196801561@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161007150211.196801561@infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Peter,

Just one comment below.

On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 04:52:48PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> @@ -54,8 +54,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__mutex_init);
>   * bits to store extra state.
>   *
>   * Bit0 indicates a non-empty waiter list; unlock must issue a wakeup.
> + * Bit1 indicates unlock needs to hand the lock to the top-waiter
>   */
>  #define MUTEX_FLAG_WAITERS	0x01
> +#define MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF	0x02
>  
>  #define MUTEX_FLAGS		0x03
>  
> @@ -71,20 +73,48 @@ static inline unsigned long __owner_flag
>  
>  /*
>   * Actual trylock that will work on any unlocked state.
> + *
> + * When setting the owner field, we must preserve the low flag bits.
> + *
> + * Be careful with @handoff, only set that in a wait-loop (where you set
> + * HANDOFF) to avoid recursive lock attempts.
>   */
> -static inline bool __mutex_trylock(struct mutex *lock)
> +static inline bool __mutex_trylock(struct mutex *lock, const bool handoff)
>  {
>  	unsigned long owner, curr = (unsigned long)current;
>  
>  	owner = atomic_long_read(&lock->owner);
>  	for (;;) { /* must loop, can race against a flag */
> -		unsigned long old;
> +		unsigned long old, flags = __owner_flags(owner);
> +
> +		if (__owner_task(owner)) {
> +			if (handoff && unlikely(__owner_task(owner) == current)) {
> +				/*
> +				 * Provide ACQUIRE semantics for the lock-handoff.
> +				 *
> +				 * We cannot easily use load-acquire here, since
> +				 * the actual load is a failed cmpxchg, which
> +				 * doesn't imply any barriers.
> +				 *
> +				 * Also, this is a fairly unlikely scenario, and
> +				 * this contains the cost.
> +				 */
> +				smp_mb(); /* ACQUIRE */

As we discussed on another thread recently, a failed cmpxchg_acquire
will always give you ACQUIRE semantics in practice. Maybe we should update
the documentation to allow this? The only special case is the full-barrier
version.

Will