From: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Noam Camus <noamc@ezchip.com>, <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org>, <linux-parisc@vger.kernel>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@parisc-linux.org>,
Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
"linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: slub: Ensure that slab_unlock() is atomic
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 12:13:16 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56DFC604.6070407@synopsys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1603081438020.4268@east.gentwo.org>
+CC linux-arch, parisc folks, PeterZ
On Wednesday 09 March 2016 02:10 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2016, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>
>> # set the bit
>> 80543b8e: ld_s r2,[r13,0] <--- (A) Finds PG_locked is set
>> 80543b90: or r3,r2,1 <--- (B) other core unlocks right here
>> 80543b94: st_s r3,[r13,0] <--- (C) sets PG_locked (overwrites unlock)
>
> Duh. Guess you need to take the spinlock also in the arch specific
> implementation of __bit_spin_unlock(). This is certainly not the only case
> in which we use the __ op to unlock.
__bit_spin_lock() by definition is *not* required to be atomic, bit_spin_lock() is
- so I don't think we need a spinlock there.
There is clearly a problem in slub code that it is pairing a test_and_set_bit()
with a __clear_bit(). Latter can obviously clobber former if they are not a single
instruction each unlike x86 or they use llock/scond kind of instructions where the
interim store from other core is detected and causes a retry of whole llock/scond
sequence.
BTW ARC is not the only arch which suffers from this - other arches potentially
also are. AFAIK PARISC also doesn't have atomic r-m-w and also uses a set of
external hashed spinlocks to protect the r-m-w sequences.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/1/178
So there also we have the same race because the outer spin lock is not taken for
slab_unlock() -> __bit_spin_lock() -> __clear_bit.
Arguably I can fix the ARC !LLSC variant of test_and_set_bit() to not set the bit
unconditionally but only if it was clear (PARISC does the same). That would be a
slight micro-optimization as we won't need another snoop transaction to make line
writable and that would also elide this problem, but I think there is a
fundamental problem here in slub which is pairing atomic and non atomic ops - for
performance reasons. It doesn't work on all arches and/or configurations.
> You need a true atomic op or you need to take the "spinlock" in all
> cases where you modify the bit.
No we don't in __bit_spin_lock and we already do in bit_spin_lock.
> If you take the lock in __bit_spin_unlock
> then the race cannot happen.
Of course it won't but that means we penalize all non atomic callers of the API
with a superfluous spinlock which is not require din first place given the
definition of API.
>> Are you convinced now !
>
> Yes, please fix your arch specific code.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-09 6:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-08 14:30 [PATCH] mm: slub: Ensure that slab_unlock() is atomic Vineet Gupta
2016-03-08 15:00 ` Christoph Lameter
2016-03-08 15:46 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-03-08 20:40 ` Christoph Lameter
2016-03-09 6:43 ` Vineet Gupta [this message]
2016-03-09 10:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-09 10:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-09 11:12 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-03-09 11:00 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-03-09 11:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-09 11:53 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-03-09 12:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-14 8:05 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-03-21 11:16 ` [tip:locking/urgent] bitops: Do not default to __clear_bit() for __clear_bit_unlock() tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-09 13:22 ` [PATCH] mm: slub: Ensure that slab_unlock() is atomic Vineet Gupta
2016-03-09 14:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-10 5:51 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-03-10 9:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-08 15:32 ` Vlastimil Babka
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=56DFC604.6070407@synopsys.com \
--to=vineet.gupta1@synopsys.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=deller@gmx.de \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=jejb@parisc-linux.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-parisc@vger.kernel \
--cc=linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=noamc@ezchip.com \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=stable@vger.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).