From: Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
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>,
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: Wed, 1 Sep 2021 14:53:37 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <afd149f2-b3ad-f7e1-7478-ca35685d2340@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210901150627.620830-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com>
On 9/1/21 11:06 AM, Boqun Feng wrote:
> 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)))
Should we also change *cmpxchg() to cmpxchg_acquire() as it is a little
cheaper for ll/sc arches?
The other changes look good to me.
Cheers,
Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-01 18:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-01 15:06 [RFC] locking: rwbase: Take care of ordering guarantee for fastpath reader Boqun Feng
2021-09-01 18:53 ` Waiman Long [this message]
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=afd149f2-b3ad-f7e1-7478-ca35685d2340@redhat.com \
--to=llong@redhat.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--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).