From: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-parisc@vger.kernel>, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@parisc-linux.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Noam Camus <noamc@ezchip.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
<linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: slub: Ensure that slab_unlock() is atomic
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 17:23:26 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56E00EB6.4000201@synopsys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160309114054.GJ6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Wednesday 09 March 2016 05:10 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 04:30:31PM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> FWIW, could we add some background to commit log, specifically what prompted this.
>> Something like below...
>
> Sure.. find below.
>
>>> +++ b/include/asm-generic/bitops/lock.h
>>> @@ -29,16 +29,16 @@ do { \
>>> * @nr: the bit to set
>>> * @addr: the address to start counting from
>>> *
>>> + * A weaker form of clear_bit_unlock() as used by __bit_lock_unlock(). If all
>>> + * the bits in the word are protected by this lock some archs can use weaker
>>> + * ops to safely unlock.
>>> + *
>>> + * See for example x86's implementation.
>>> */
>>
>> To be able to override/use-generic don't we need #ifndef ....
>
> I did not follow through the maze, I think the few archs implementing
> this simply do not include this file at all.
>
> I'll let the first person that cares about this worry about that :-)
Ok - that's be me :-) although I really don't see much gains in case of ARC LLSC.
For us, LD + BCLR + ST is very similar to LLOCK + BCLR + SCOND atleast in terms of
cache coherency transactions !
>
> ---
> Subject: bitops: Do not default to __clear_bit() for __clear_bit_unlock()
>
> __clear_bit_unlock() is a special little snowflake. While it carries the
> non-atomic '__' prefix, it is specifically documented to pair with
> test_and_set_bit() and therefore should be 'somewhat' atomic.
>
> Therefore the generic implementation of __clear_bit_unlock() cannot use
> the fully non-atomic __clear_bit() as a default.
>
> If an arch is able to do better; is must provide an implementation of
> __clear_bit_unlock() itself.
>
> Specifically, this came up as a result of hackbench livelock'ing in
> slab_lock() on ARC with SMP + SLUB + !LLSC.
>
> The issue was incorrect pairing of atomic ops.
>
> slab_lock() -> bit_spin_lock() -> test_and_set_bit()
> slab_unlock() -> __bit_spin_unlock() -> __clear_bit()
>
> The non serializing __clear_bit() was getting "lost"
>
> 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)
>
> Fixes ARC STAR 9000817404 (and probably more).
>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Reported-by: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com>
> Tested-by: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
LGTM. Thx a bunch Peter !
-Vineet
> ---
> include/asm-generic/bitops/lock.h | 14 +++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/bitops/lock.h b/include/asm-generic/bitops/lock.h
> index c30266e94806..8ef0ccbf8167 100644
> --- a/include/asm-generic/bitops/lock.h
> +++ b/include/asm-generic/bitops/lock.h
> @@ -29,16 +29,16 @@ do { \
> * @nr: the bit to set
> * @addr: the address to start counting from
> *
> - * This operation is like clear_bit_unlock, however it is not atomic.
> - * It does provide release barrier semantics so it can be used to unlock
> - * a bit lock, however it would only be used if no other CPU can modify
> - * any bits in the memory until the lock is released (a good example is
> - * if the bit lock itself protects access to the other bits in the word).
> + * A weaker form of clear_bit_unlock() as used by __bit_lock_unlock(). If all
> + * the bits in the word are protected by this lock some archs can use weaker
> + * ops to safely unlock.
> + *
> + * See for example x86's implementation.
> */
> #define __clear_bit_unlock(nr, addr) \
> do { \
> - smp_mb(); \
> - __clear_bit(nr, addr); \
> + smp_mb__before_atomic(); \
> + clear_bit(nr, addr); \
> } while (0)
>
> #endif /* _ASM_GENERIC_BITOPS_LOCK_H_ */
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-09 11:54 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
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 [this message]
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=56E00EB6.4000201@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).