LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Prateek Sood <prsood@codeaurora.org>,
	peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, sramana@codeaurora.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rwsem: fix missed wakeup due to reordering of load
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 10:32:56 +0200
Message-ID: <20170810083255.GA3913@andrea> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <680a3f82-b36b-e09f-b1db-fa23d9f21fc2@redhat.com>

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:48:53AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 07/26/2017 04:17 PM, Prateek Sood wrote:
> > If a spinner is present, there is a chance that the load of
> > rwsem_has_spinner() in rwsem_wake() can be reordered with
> > respect to decrement of rwsem count in __up_write() leading
> > to wakeup being missed.
> >
> >  spinning writer                  up_write caller
> >  ---------------                  -----------------------
> >  [S] osq_unlock()                 [L] osq
> >   spin_lock(wait_lock)
> >   sem->count=0xFFFFFFFF00000001
> >             +0xFFFFFFFF00000000
> >   count=sem->count
> >   MB
> >                                    sem->count=0xFFFFFFFE00000001
> >                                              -0xFFFFFFFF00000001
> >                                    spin_trylock(wait_lock)
> >                                    return
> >  rwsem_try_write_lock(count)
> >  spin_unlock(wait_lock)
> >  schedule()
> >
> > Reordering of atomic_long_sub_return_release() in __up_write()
> > and rwsem_has_spinner() in rwsem_wake() can cause missing of
> > wakeup in up_write() context. In spinning writer, sem->count
> > and local variable count is 0XFFFFFFFE00000001. It would result
> > in rwsem_try_write_lock() failing to acquire rwsem and spinning
> > writer going to sleep in rwsem_down_write_failed().
> >
> > The smp_rmb() will make sure that the spinner state is
> > consulted after sem->count is updated in up_write context.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Prateek Sood <prsood@codeaurora.org>
> 
> Did you actually observe that the reordering happens?
> 
> I am not sure if some architectures can actually speculatively execute
> instruction ahead of a branch and then ahead into a function call. I
> know it can happen if the function call is inlined, but rwsem_wake()
> will not be inlined into __up_read() or __up_write().

Branches/control dependencies targeting a read do not necessarily preserve
program order; this is for example the case for PowerPC and ARM.

I'd not expect more than a compiler barrier from a function call (in fact,
not even that if the function happens to be inlined).


> 
> Even if that is the case, I am not sure if smp_rmb() alone is enough to
> guarantee the ordering as I think it will depend on how the
> atomic_long_sub_return_release() is implmented.

AFAICT, the pattern under discussion is MP with:

  - a store-release to osq->tail(unlock) followed by a store to sem->count,
    separated by a MB (from atomic_long_add_return()) on CPU0;

  - a load of sem->count (for atomic_long_sub_return_release()) followed by
    a load of osq->tail (rwsem_has_spinner()) on CPU1.

Thus a RMW between the two loads suffices to forbid the weak behaviour.

  Andrea


> 
> Cheers,
> Longman
> 

  parent reply index

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-07-26 20:17 Prateek Sood
2017-07-27 15:48 ` Waiman Long
2017-07-27 16:59   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-10  8:32   ` Andrea Parri [this message]
2017-08-10 10:41     ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-10 10:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-23 11:28 Prateek Sood
2017-08-24 11:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-24 12:33   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-24 12:52     ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-09-07 14:08       ` Prateek Sood
2017-09-07 14:30 Prateek Sood
2017-09-19 14:05 ` Andrea Parri
2017-09-20 14:52 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2017-09-20 21:17   ` Andrea Parri
2017-09-27 21:20     ` Davidlohr Bueso
2017-09-26 18:37 ` Prateek Sood

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=20170810083255.GA3913@andrea \
    --to=parri.andrea@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=prsood@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=sramana@codeaurora.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

LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/0 lkml/git/0.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1 lkml/git/1.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2 lkml/git/2.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/3 lkml/git/3.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/4 lkml/git/4.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/5 lkml/git/5.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6 lkml/git/6.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/7 lkml/git/7.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/8 lkml/git/8.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 lkml lkml/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml \
		linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index lkml

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git