From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Subject: [RFC] locking: rwbase: Take care of ordering guarantee for fastpath reader Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2021 23:06:27 +0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20210901150627.620830-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com> (raw) Readers of rwbase can lock and unlock without taking any inner lock, if that happens, we need the ordering provided by atomic operations to satisfy the ordering semantics of lock/unlock. Without that, considering the follow case: { X = 0 initially } CPU 0 CPU 1 ===== ===== rt_write_lock(); X = 1 rt_write_unlock(): atomic_add(READER_BIAS - WRITER_BIAS, ->readers); // ->readers is READER_BIAS. rt_read_lock(): if ((r = atomic_read(->readers)) < 0) // True atomic_try_cmpxchg(->readers, r, r + 1); // succeed. <acquire the read lock via fast path> r1 = X; // r1 may be 0, because nothing prevent the reordering // of "X=1" and atomic_add() on CPU 1. Therefore audit every usage of atomic operations that may happen in a fast path, and add necessary barriers. Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> --- Hi Thomas and Peter, Sorry I'm late for the party of PREEMPT_RT lock review. Just want to point the problem with this patch. Not even compile test, but show the idea and check if I'm missing something subtle. Regards, Boqun kernel/locking/rwbase_rt.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwbase_rt.c b/kernel/locking/rwbase_rt.c index 4ba15088e640..a1886fd8bde6 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/rwbase_rt.c +++ b/kernel/locking/rwbase_rt.c @@ -41,6 +41,12 @@ * The risk of writer starvation is there, but the pathological use cases * which trigger it are not necessarily the typical RT workloads. * + * Fast-path orderings: + * The lock/unlock of readers can run in fast paths: lock and unlock are only + * atomic ops, and there is no inner lock to provide ACQUIRE and RELEASE + * semantics of rwbase_rt. Atomic ops then should be stronger than _acquire() + * and _release() to provide necessary ordering guarantee. + * * Common code shared between RT rw_semaphore and rwlock */ @@ -53,6 +59,7 @@ static __always_inline int rwbase_read_trylock(struct rwbase_rt *rwb) * set. */ for (r = atomic_read(&rwb->readers); r < 0;) { + /* Fully-ordered if cmpxchg() succeeds, provides ACQUIRE */ if (likely(atomic_try_cmpxchg(&rwb->readers, &r, r + 1))) return 1; } @@ -162,6 +169,8 @@ static __always_inline void rwbase_read_unlock(struct rwbase_rt *rwb, /* * rwb->readers can only hit 0 when a writer is waiting for the * active readers to leave the critical section. + * + * dec_and_test() is fully ordered, provides RELEASE. */ if (unlikely(atomic_dec_and_test(&rwb->readers))) __rwbase_read_unlock(rwb, state); @@ -172,7 +181,11 @@ static inline void __rwbase_write_unlock(struct rwbase_rt *rwb, int bias, { struct rt_mutex_base *rtm = &rwb->rtmutex; - atomic_add(READER_BIAS - bias, &rwb->readers); + /* + * _release() is needed in case that reader is in fast path, pairing + * with atomic_try_cmpxchg() in rwbase_read_trylock(), provides RELEASE + */ + (void)atomic_add_return_release(READER_BIAS - bias, &rwb->readers); raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rtm->wait_lock, flags); rwbase_rtmutex_unlock(rtm); } @@ -216,8 +229,14 @@ static int __sched rwbase_write_lock(struct rwbase_rt *rwb, */ rwbase_set_and_save_current_state(state); - /* Block until all readers have left the critical section. */ - for (; atomic_read(&rwb->readers);) { + /* + * Block until all readers have left the critical section. + * + * _acqurie() is needed in case that the reader side runs in the fast + * path, pairing with the atomic_dec_and_test() in rwbase_read_unlock(), + * provides ACQUIRE. + */ + for (; atomic_read_acquire(&rwb->readers);) { /* Optimized out for rwlocks */ if (rwbase_signal_pending_state(state, current)) { __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING); @@ -229,6 +248,9 @@ static int __sched rwbase_write_lock(struct rwbase_rt *rwb, /* * Schedule and wait for the readers to leave the critical * section. The last reader leaving it wakes the waiter. + * + * _acquire() is not needed, because we can rely on the smp_mb() + * in set_current_state() to provide ACQUIRE. */ if (atomic_read(&rwb->readers) != 0) rwbase_schedule(); @@ -253,7 +275,11 @@ static inline int rwbase_write_trylock(struct rwbase_rt *rwb) atomic_sub(READER_BIAS, &rwb->readers); raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rtm->wait_lock, flags); - if (!atomic_read(&rwb->readers)) { + /* + * _acquire() is needed in case reader is in the fast path, pairing with + * rwbase_read_unlock(), provides ACQUIRE. + */ + if (!atomic_read_acquire(&rwb->readers)) { atomic_set(&rwb->readers, WRITER_BIAS); raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rtm->wait_lock, flags); return 1; -- 2.32.0
next reply other threads:[~2021-09-01 15:07 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-09-01 15:06 Boqun Feng [this message] 2021-09-01 18:53 ` Waiman Long 2021-09-01 20:22 ` Davidlohr Bueso 2021-09-02 5:02 ` Boqun Feng 2021-09-02 11:55 ` Peter Zijlstra 2021-09-03 14:50 ` Boqun Feng 2021-09-04 10:12 ` Peter Zijlstra 2021-09-04 10:14 ` Peter Zijlstra 2021-09-04 10:19 ` Boqun Feng 2021-09-08 11:51 ` Peter Zijlstra 2021-09-08 12:14 ` Peter Zijlstra 2021-09-08 13:00 ` Boqun Feng 2021-09-08 13:08 ` Boqun Feng 2021-09-08 14:41 ` Peter Zijlstra 2021-09-08 14:49 ` Peter Zijlstra 2021-09-08 18:34 ` Davidlohr Bueso 2021-09-08 13:27 ` Boqun Feng
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=20210901150627.620830-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com \ --to=boqun.feng@gmail.com \ --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \ --cc=bristot@redhat.com \ --cc=dave@stgolabs.net \ --cc=efault@gmx.de \ --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=longman@redhat.com \ --cc=mingo@kernel.org \ --cc=peterz@infradead.org \ --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \ --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \ --cc=will@kernel.org \ --subject='Re: [RFC] locking: rwbase: Take care of ordering guarantee for fastpath reader' \ /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
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).