linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.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: Re: [RFC] locking: rwbase: Take care of ordering guarantee for fastpath reader
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2021 13:02:01 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YTBayYS1KPGlgl6c@boqun-archlinux> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210901202242.2bzb6fbwyorfux3f@offworld>

On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 01:22:42PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2021, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Perhaps the following instead?
> 

Thanks.

> + * Ordering guarantees: As with any locking primitive, (load)-ACQUIRE and
> + * (store)-RELEASE semantics are guaranteed for lock and unlock operations,
> + * respectively; such that nothing leaks out of the critical region. When
> + * writers are involved this is provided through the rtmutex. However, for
> + * reader fast-paths, the atomics provide at least such guarantees.
> 

However, this is a bit inaccurate, yes, writers always acquire the lock
(->readers) in the critical sections of ->wait_lock. But if readers run
the fast-paths, the atomics of the writers have to provide the ordering,
because we can rely on rtmutex orderings only if both sides run in
slow-paths.

> Also, I think you could remove most of the comments wrt _acquire or _release
> in the fastpath for each ->readers atomic op, unless it isn't obvious.
> 
> > + *
> >  * 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;) {
> 
> Unrelated, but we probably wanna get rid of these abusing for-loops throughout.
> 

Agreed, let me see what I can do.

> > +		/* Fully-ordered if cmpxchg() succeeds, provides ACQUIRE */
> > 		if (likely(atomic_try_cmpxchg(&rwb->readers, &r, r + 1)))
> 
> As Waiman suggested, this can be _acquire() - albeit we're only missing
> an L->L for acquire semantics upon returning, per the control dependency
> already guaranteeing L->S. That way we would loop with _relaxed().
> 

_acquire() is fine, I think. But probably a separate patch. We should be
careful when relaxing the ordering, and perhaps, with some performance
numbers showing the benefits.

> > 			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);
> 
> Hmmm while defined, there are no users atomic_add_return_release (yet?). I think

There is a usage of atomic_sub_return_release() in queued_spin_unlock()
;-)

> this is because the following is preferred when the return value is not really
> wanted, but only the Rmw ordering it provides:
> 
> +       smp_mb__before_atomic(); /* provide RELEASE semantics */
> 	atomic_add(READER_BIAS - bias, &rwb->readers);
> 	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rtm->wait_lock, flags);
> 	rwbase_rtmutex_unlock(rtm);
> 

smp_mb__before_atomic() + atomic will be a smp_mb() + atomic on weakly
ordered archs (e.g. ARM64 and PowerPC), while atomic_*_return_release()
will be a release atomic operation (e.g. ldxr/stxlr on ARM64), the
latter is considered more cheap.

Regards,
Boqun

> > 	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rtm->wait_lock, flags);
> > 	rwbase_rtmutex_unlock(rtm);
> > }
> 
> Thanks,
> Davidlohr

  reply	other threads:[~2021-09-02  5:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-09-01 15:06 Boqun Feng
2021-09-01 18:53 ` Waiman Long
2021-09-01 20:22 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2021-09-02  5:02   ` Boqun Feng [this message]
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=YTBayYS1KPGlgl6c@boqun-archlinux \
    --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).