linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, will@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	boqun.feng@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] locking/rwsem: Rework writer wakeup
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 11:31:02 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y/yGZgz1cJ1+pTt5@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <943686ee-975d-a463-46d1-04b200ac19b1@redhat.com>

On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 07:22:47PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:

> @@ -1151,55 +1154,39 @@ rwsem_down_write_slowpath(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
> int state)
>                 }
>         } else {
>                 atomic_long_or(RWSEM_FLAG_WAITERS, &sem->count);
> +               if (rwsem_try_write_lock(sem, &waiter))
> +                       waiter.task = NULL;
>         }
> +       raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> 
>         /* wait until we successfully acquire the lock */
> -       set_current_state(state);
>         trace_contention_begin(sem, LCB_F_WRITE);
> 
>         for (;;) {
> -               if (rwsem_try_write_lock(sem, &waiter)) {
> -                       /* rwsem_try_write_lock() implies ACQUIRE on success
> */
> +               set_current_state(state);
> +               if (!smp_load_acquire(&waiter.task)) {
> +                       /* Matches rwsem_waiter_wake()'s
> smp_store_release(). */
>                         break;
>                 }
> -
> 
> The additional rwsem_try_write_lock() call seems to address the missed
> wakeup problem AFAICT.

Indeed, prior to this I could readily reproduce the lockup.

So when thinking about missing wakeups I noticed this race on WAITERS.
If we queue but the unlock does not yet observe WAITERS the unlock does
not go into the slow path and wakeup gets lost.

Reader side fixes this with rwsem_cond_wake_waiter(), but I could not
convince myself that is correct for writer side -- perhaps it is, will
need to think more on that.

> I do have some concern that early lock transfer to a lock owner that has not
> been woken up yet may suppress writer lock stealing from optimistic spinning
> causing some performance regression in some cases. Let's see if the test
> robot report anything.

Ah yes, I suppose that is indeed a possibility. Given this is all under
wait_lock and the spinner is not, I was hoping it would still have
sufficient time to win. But yes, robots will tell us.

  reply	other threads:[~2023-02-27 10:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-02-23 12:26 [PATCH 0/6] locking/rwsem: Rework writer wakeup and handoff Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-23 12:26 ` [PATCH 1/6] locking/rwsem: Minor code refactoring in rwsem_mark_wake() Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-23 12:26 ` [PATCH 2/6] locking/rwsem: Enforce queueing when HANDOFF Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-23 12:26 ` [PATCH 3/6] locking/rwsem: Rework writer wakeup Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-23 21:38   ` Waiman Long
2023-02-26 11:58     ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-26 12:00     ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-26 21:31       ` Waiman Long
2023-02-26 11:59   ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-26 15:04   ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-26 16:51     ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-27  0:22       ` Waiman Long
2023-02-27 10:31         ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2023-02-27 20:16           ` Waiman Long
2023-03-20  8:12             ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-20 17:36               ` Waiman Long
2023-02-23 12:26 ` [PATCH 4/6] locking/rwsem: Split out rwsem_reader_wake() Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-23 12:26 ` [PATCH 5/6] locking/rwsem: Unify wait loop Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-23 19:31   ` Boqun Feng
2023-02-24  1:33     ` Boqun Feng
2023-02-26 12:01       ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-26 18:22         ` Boqun Feng
2023-02-23 22:45   ` Waiman Long
2023-02-26 16:15     ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-23 12:26 ` [PATCH 6/6] locking/rwsem: Use the force Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-24  1:19 ` [PATCH 0/6] locking/rwsem: Rework writer wakeup and handoff Waiman Long
2023-02-24 11:55   ` Jiri Wiesner

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=Y/yGZgz1cJ1+pTt5@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=will@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).