commit d33d26036a0274b472299d7dcdaa5fb34329f91b upstream.
rt_mutex_handle_deadlock() is called with rt_mutex::wait_lock held. In the
good case it returns with the lock held and in the deadlock case it emits a
warning and goes into an endless scheduling loop with the lock held, which
triggers the 'scheduling in atomic' warning.
Unlock rt_mutex::wait_lock in the dead lock case before issuing the warning
and dropping into the schedule for ever loop.
[ tglx: Moved unlock before the WARN(), removed the pointless comment,
massaged changelog, added Fixes tag ]
Fixes: 3d5c9340d1 ("rtmutex: Handle deadlock detection smarter")
Signed-off-by: Roland Xu <mu001999@outlook.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/ME0P300MB063599BEF0743B8FA339C2CECC802@ME0P300MB0635.AUSP300.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
(cherry picked from commit 432efdbe7da5ecfcbc0c2180cfdbab1441752a38)
Signed-off-by: Harshit Mogalapalli <harshit.m.mogalapalli@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>
[ Upstream commit bccdd808902f8c677317cec47c306e42b93b849e ]
In some cases running with the test-ww_mutex code, I was seeing
odd behavior where sometimes it seemed flush_workqueue was
returning before all the work threads were finished.
Often this would cause strange crashes as the mutexes would be
freed while they were being used.
Looking at the code, there is a lifetime problem as the
controlling thread that spawns the work allocates the
"struct stress" structures that are passed to the workqueue
threads. Then when the workqueue threads are finished,
they free the stress struct that was passed to them.
Unfortunately the workqueue work_struct node is in the stress
struct. Which means the work_struct is freed before the work
thread returns and while flush_workqueue is waiting.
It seems like a better idea to have the controlling thread
both allocate and free the stress structures, so that we can
be sure we don't corrupt the workqueue by freeing the structure
prematurely.
So this patch reworks the test to do so, and with this change
I no longer see the early flush_workqueue returns.
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230922043616.19282-3-jstultz@google.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Yanfei reported that setting HANDOFF should not depend on recomputing
@first, only on @first state. Which would then give:
if (ww_ctx || !first)
first = __mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, &waiter);
if (first)
__mutex_set_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF);
But because 'ww_ctx || !first' is basically 'always' and the test for
first is relatively cheap, omit that first branch entirely.
Reported-by: Yanfei Xu <yanfei.xu@windriver.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Yanfei Xu <yanfei.xu@windriver.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210630154114.896786297@infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Andrzej Perczak <linux@andrzejperczak.com>
Reader optimistic spinning is helpful when the reader critical section
is short and there aren't that many readers around. It also improves
the chance that a reader can get the lock as writer optimistic spinning
disproportionally favors writers much more than readers.
Since commit d3681e269fff ("locking/rwsem: Wake up almost all readers
in wait queue"), all the waiting readers are woken up so that they can
all get the read lock and run in parallel. When the number of contending
readers is large, allowing reader optimistic spinning will likely cause
reader fragmentation where multiple smaller groups of readers can get
the read lock in a sequential manner separated by writers. That reduces
reader parallelism.
One possible way to address that drawback is to limit the number of
readers (preferably one) that can do optimistic spinning. These readers
act as representatives of all the waiting readers in the wait queue as
they will wake up all those waiting readers once they get the lock.
Alternatively, as reader optimistic lock stealing has already enhanced
fairness to readers, it may be easier to just remove reader optimistic
spinning and simplifying the optimistic spinning code as a result.
Performance measurements (locking throughput kops/s) using a locking
microbenchmark with 50/50 reader/writer distribution and turbo-boost
disabled was done on a 2-socket Cascade Lake system (48-core 96-thread)
to see the impacts of these changes:
1) Vanilla - 5.10-rc3 kernel
2) Before - 5.10-rc3 kernel with previous patches in this series
2) limit-rspin - 5.10-rc3 kernel with limited reader spinning patch
3) no-rspin - 5.10-rc3 kernel with reader spinning disabled
# of threads CS Load Vanilla Before limit-rspin no-rspin
------------ ------- ------- ------ ----------- --------
2 1 5,185 5,662 5,214 5,077
4 1 5,107 4,983 5,188 4,760
8 1 4,782 4,564 4,720 4,628
16 1 4,680 4,053 4,567 3,402
32 1 4,299 1,115 1,118 1,098
64 1 3,218 983 1,001 957
96 1 1,938 944 957 930
2 20 2,008 2,128 2,264 1,665
4 20 1,390 1,033 1,046 1,101
8 20 1,472 1,155 1,098 1,213
16 20 1,332 1,077 1,089 1,122
32 20 967 914 917 980
64 20 787 874 891 858
96 20 730 836 847 844
2 100 372 356 360 355
4 100 492 425 434 392
8 100 533 537 529 538
16 100 548 572 568 598
32 100 499 520 527 537
64 100 466 517 526 512
96 100 406 497 506 509
The column "CS Load" represents the number of pause instructions issued
in the locking critical section. A CS load of 1 is extremely short and
is not likey in real situations. A load of 20 (moderate) and 100 (long)
are more realistic.
It can be seen that the previous patches in this series have reduced
performance in general except in highly contended cases with moderate
or long critical sections that performance improves a bit. This change
is mostly caused by the "Prevent potential lock starvation" patch that
reduce reader optimistic spinning and hence reduce reader fragmentation.
The patch that further limit reader optimistic spinning doesn't seem to
have too much impact on overall performance as shown in the benchmark
data.
The patch that disables reader optimistic spinning shows reduced
performance at lightly loaded cases, but comparable or slightly better
performance on with heavier contention.
This patch just removes reader optimistic spinning for now. As readers
are not going to do optimistic spinning anymore, we don't need to
consider if the OSQ is empty or not when doing lock stealing.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201121041416.12285-6-longman@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Andrzej Perczak <linux@andrzejperczak.com>
If the optimistic spinning queue is empty and the rwsem does not have
the handoff or write-lock bits set, it is actually not necessary to
call rwsem_optimistic_spin() to spin on it. Instead, it can steal the
lock directly as its reader bias is in the count already. If it is
the first reader in this state, it will try to wake up other readers
in the wait queue.
With this patch applied, the following were the lock event counts
after rebooting a 2-socket system and a "make -j96" kernel rebuild.
rwsem_opt_rlock=4437
rwsem_rlock=29
rwsem_rlock_steal=19
So lock stealing represents about 0.4% of all the read locks acquired
in the slow path.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201121041416.12285-4-longman@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Andrzej Perczak <linux@andrzejperczak.com>
The lock handoff bit is added in commit 4f23dbc1e657 ("locking/rwsem:
Implement lock handoff to prevent lock starvation") to avoid lock
starvation. However, allowing readers to do optimistic spinning does
introduce an unlikely scenario where lock starvation can happen.
The lock handoff bit may only be set when a waiter is being woken up.
In the case of reader unlock, wakeup happens only when the reader count
reaches 0. If there is a continuous stream of incoming readers acquiring
read lock via optimistic spinning, it is possible that the reader count
may never reach 0 and so the handoff bit will never be asserted.
One way to prevent this scenario from happening is to disallow optimistic
spinning if the rwsem is currently owned by readers. If the previous
or current owner is a writer, optimistic spinning will be allowed.
If the previous owner is a reader but the reader count has reached 0
before, a wakeup should have been issued. So the handoff mechanism
will be kicked in to prevent lock starvation. As a result, it should
be OK to do optimistic spinning in this case.
This patch may have some impact on reader performance as it reduces
reader optimistic spinning especially if the lock critical sections
are short the number of contending readers are small.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201121041416.12285-3-longman@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Andrzej Perczak <linux@andrzejperczak.com>
The rt_mutex structure's ->owner field is read locklessly, so this
commit adds the WRITE_ONCE() to an update in order to provide proper
documentation and READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() pairing.
This data race was reported by KCSAN. Not appropriate for backporting
due to failure being unlikely.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrzej Perczak <linux@andrzejperczak.com>
[ Upstream commit 3a010c493271f04578b133de977e0e5dd2848cea ]
When a interruptible mutex locker is interrupted by a signal
without acquiring this lock and removed from the wait queue.
if the mutex isn't contended enough to have a waiter
put into the wait queue again, the setting of the WAITER
bit will force mutex locker to go into the slowpath to
acquire the lock every time, so if the wait queue is empty,
the WAITER bit need to be clear.
Fixes: 040a0a3710 ("mutex: Add support for wound/wait style locks")
Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@windriver.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210517034005.30828-1-qiang.zhang@windriver.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrzej Perczak <linux@andrzejperczak.com>
[ Upstream commit 5de2055d31ea88fd9ae9709ac95c372a505a60fa ]
The use_ww_ctx flag is passed to mutex_optimistic_spin(), but the
function doesn't use it. The frequent use of the (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx)
combination is repetitive.
In fact, ww_ctx should not be used at all if !use_ww_ctx. Simplify
ww_mutex code by dropping use_ww_ctx from mutex_optimistic_spin() an
clear ww_ctx if !use_ww_ctx. In this way, we can replace (use_ww_ctx &&
ww_ctx) by just (ww_ctx).
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210316153119.13802-2-longman@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrzej Perczak <linux@andrzejperczak.com>
The commit 91d2a812dfb9 ("locking/rwsem: Make handoff writer
optimistically spin on owner") will allow a recently woken up waiting
writer to spin on the owner. Unfortunately, if the owner happens to be
RWSEM_OWNER_UNKNOWN, the code will incorrectly spin on it leading to a
kernel crash. This is fixed by passing the proper non-spinnable bits
to rwsem_spin_on_owner() so that RWSEM_OWNER_UNKNOWN will be treated
as a non-spinnable target.
Fixes: 91d2a812dfb9 ("locking/rwsem: Make handoff writer optimistically spin on owner")
Reported-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Tested-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200115154336.8679-1-longman@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Andrzej Perczak <linux@andrzejperczak.com>
When the handoff bit is set by a writer, no other tasks other than
the setting writer itself is allowed to acquire the lock. If the
to-be-handoff'ed writer goes to sleep, there will be a wakeup latency
period where the lock is free, but no one can acquire it. That is less
than ideal.
To reduce that latency, the handoff writer will now optimistically spin
on the owner if it happens to be a on-cpu writer. It will spin until
it releases the lock and the to-be-handoff'ed writer can then acquire
the lock immediately without any delay. Of course, if the owner is not
a on-cpu writer, the to-be-handoff'ed writer will have to sleep anyway.
The optimistic spinning code is also modified to not stop spinning
when the handoff bit is set. This will prevent an occasional setting of
handoff bit from causing a bunch of optimistic spinners from entering
into the wait queue causing significant reduction in throughput.
On a 1-socket 22-core 44-thread Skylake system, the AIM7 shared_memory
workload was run with 7000 users. The throughput (jobs/min) of the
following kernels were as follows:
1) 5.2-rc6
- 8,092,486
2) 5.2-rc6 + tip's rwsem patches
- 7,567,568
3) 5.2-rc6 + tip's rwsem patches + this patch
- 7,954,545
Using perf-record(1), the %cpu time used by rwsem_down_write_slowpath(),
rwsem_down_write_failed() and their callees for the 3 kernels were 1.70%,
5.46% and 2.08% respectively.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: x86@kernel.org
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190625143913.24154-1-longman@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Andrzej Perczak <linux@andrzejperczak.com>
Change-Id: I6060544c875b1db9a8fa73df7e86fa66a27b7cd2
Extend lockdep to validate lock wait-type context.
The current wait-types are:
LD_WAIT_FREE, /* wait free, rcu etc.. */
LD_WAIT_SPIN, /* spin loops, raw_spinlock_t etc.. */
LD_WAIT_CONFIG, /* CONFIG_PREEMPT_LOCK, spinlock_t etc.. */
LD_WAIT_SLEEP, /* sleeping locks, mutex_t etc.. */
Where lockdep validates that the current lock (the one being acquired)
fits in the current wait-context (as generated by the held stack).
This ensures that there is no attempt to acquire mutexes while holding
spinlocks, to acquire spinlocks while holding raw_spinlocks and so on. In
other words, its a more fancy might_sleep().
Obviously RCU made the entire ordeal more complex than a simple single
value test because RCU can be acquired in (pretty much) any context and
while it presents a context to nested locks it is not the same as it
got acquired in.
Therefore its necessary to split the wait_type into two values, one
representing the acquire (outer) and one representing the nested context
(inner). For most 'normal' locks these two are the same.
[ To make static initialization easier we have the rule that:
.outer == INV means .outer == .inner; because INV == 0. ]
It further means that its required to find the minimal .inner of the held
stack to compare against the outer of the new lock; because while 'normal'
RCU presents a CONFIG type to nested locks, if it is taken while already
holding a SPIN type it obviously doesn't relax the rules.
Below is an example output generated by the trivial test code:
raw_spin_lock(&foo);
spin_lock(&bar);
spin_unlock(&bar);
raw_spin_unlock(&foo);
[ BUG: Invalid wait context ]
-----------------------------
swapper/0/1 is trying to lock:
ffffc90000013f20 (&bar){....}-{3:3}, at: kernel_init+0xdb/0x187
other info that might help us debug this:
1 lock held by swapper/0/1:
#0: ffffc90000013ee0 (&foo){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: kernel_init+0xd1/0x187
The way to read it is to look at the new -{n,m} part in the lock
description; -{3:3} for the attempted lock, and try and match that up to
the held locks, which in this case is the one: -{2,2}.
This tells that the acquiring lock requires a more relaxed environment than
presented by the lock stack.
Currently only the normal locks and RCU are converted, the rest of the
lockdep users defaults to .inner = INV which is ignored. More conversions
can be done when desired.
The check for spinlock_t nesting is not enabled by default. It's a separate
config option for now as there are known problems which are currently
addressed. The config option allows to identify these problems and to
verify that the solutions found are indeed solving them.
The config switch will be removed and the checks will permanently enabled
once the vast majority of issues has been addressed.
[ bigeasy: Move LD_WAIT_FREE,… out of CONFIG_LOCKDEP to avoid compile
failure with CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK + !CONFIG_LOCKDEP]
[ tglx: Add the config option ]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200321113242.427089655@linutronix.de
lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements,
since it only checks if the current thread holds the lock regardless of
whether someone else does. This is also a step towards possibly removing
spin_is_locked().
Signed-off-by: Lance Roy <ldr709@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Danny Lin <danny@kdrag0n.dev>
The current Wound-Wait mutex algorithm is actually not Wound-Wait but
Wait-Die. Implement also Wound-Wait as a per-ww-class choice. Wound-Wait
is, contrary to Wait-Die a preemptive algorithm and is known to generate
fewer backoffs. Testing reveals that this is true if the
number of simultaneous contending transactions is small.
As the number of simultaneous contending threads increases, Wait-Wound
becomes inferior to Wait-Die in terms of elapsed time.
Possibly due to the larger number of held locks of sleeping transactions.
Update documentation and callers.
Timings using git://people.freedesktop.org/~thomash/ww_mutex_test
tag patch-18-06-15
Each thread runs 100000 batches of lock / unlock 800 ww mutexes randomly
chosen out of 100000. Four core Intel x86_64:
Algorithm #threads Rollbacks time
Wound-Wait 4 ~100 ~17s.
Wait-Die 4 ~150000 ~19s.
Wound-Wait 16 ~360000 ~109s.
Wait-Die 16 ~450000 ~82s.
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org>
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>
Cc: David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
Co-authored-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Danny Lin <danny@kdrag0n.dev>
In -RT task_blocks_on_rt_mutex() may return with -EAGAIN due to
(->pi_blocked_on == PI_WAKEUP_INPROGRESS) before it added itself as a
waiter. In such a case remove_waiter() must not be called because without a
waiter it will trigger the BUG_ON() statement.
This was initially reported by Yimin Deng. Thomas Gleixner fixed it then
with an explicit check for waiters before calling remove_waiter().
Instead of an explicit NULL check before calling rt_mutex_top_waiter() make
the function return NULL if there are no waiters. With that fixed the now
pointless NULL check is removed from rt_mutex_slowlock().
Reported-and-debugged-by: Yimin Deng <yimin11.deng@gmail.com>
Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAAh1qt=DCL9aUXNxanP5BKtiPp3m+qj4yB+gDohhXPVFCxWwzg@mail.gmail.com
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180327121438.sss7hxg3crqy4ecd@linutronix.de
Signed-off-by: Danny Lin <danny@kdrag0n.dev>
When running rcutorture with TREE03 config, CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y, and
kernel cmdline argument "rcutorture.gp_exp=1", lockdep reports a
HARDIRQ-safe->HARDIRQ-unsafe deadlock:
================================
WARNING: inconsistent lock state
4.16.0-rc4+ #1 Not tainted
--------------------------------
inconsistent {IN-HARDIRQ-W} -> {HARDIRQ-ON-W} usage.
takes:
__schedule+0xbe/0xaf0
{IN-HARDIRQ-W} state was registered at:
_raw_spin_lock+0x2a/0x40
scheduler_tick+0x47/0xf0
...
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(&rq->lock);
<Interrupt>
lock(&rq->lock);
*** DEADLOCK ***
1 lock held by rcu_torture_rea/724:
rcu_torture_read_lock+0x0/0x70
stack backtrace:
CPU: 2 PID: 724 Comm: rcu_torture_rea Not tainted 4.16.0-rc4+ #1
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.11.0-20171110_100015-anatol 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
lock_acquire+0x90/0x200
? __schedule+0xbe/0xaf0
_raw_spin_lock+0x2a/0x40
? __schedule+0xbe/0xaf0
__schedule+0xbe/0xaf0
preempt_schedule_irq+0x2f/0x60
retint_kernel+0x1b/0x2d
RIP: 0010:rcu_read_unlock_special+0x0/0x680
? rcu_torture_read_unlock+0x60/0x60
__rcu_read_unlock+0x64/0x70
rcu_torture_read_unlock+0x17/0x60
rcu_torture_reader+0x275/0x450
? rcutorture_booster_init+0x110/0x110
? rcu_torture_stall+0x230/0x230
? kthread+0x10e/0x130
kthread+0x10e/0x130
? kthread_create_worker_on_cpu+0x70/0x70
? call_usermodehelper_exec_async+0x11a/0x150
ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
This happens with the following even sequence:
preempt_schedule_irq();
local_irq_enable();
__schedule():
local_irq_disable(); // irq off
...
rcu_note_context_switch():
rcu_note_preempt_context_switch():
rcu_read_unlock_special():
local_irq_save(flags);
...
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(...,flags); // irq remains off
rt_mutex_futex_unlock():
raw_spin_lock_irq();
...
raw_spin_unlock_irq(); // accidentally set irq on
<return to __schedule()>
rq_lock():
raw_spin_lock(); // acquiring rq->lock with irq on
which means rq->lock becomes a HARDIRQ-unsafe lock, which can cause
deadlocks in scheduler code.
This problem was introduced by commit 02a7c234e540 ("rcu: Suppress
lockdep false-positive ->boost_mtx complaints"). That brought the user
of rt_mutex_futex_unlock() with irq off.
To fix this, replace the *lock_irq() in rt_mutex_futex_unlock() with
*lock_irq{save,restore}() to make it safe to call rt_mutex_futex_unlock()
with irq off.
Fixes: 02a7c234e540 ("rcu: Suppress lockdep false-positive ->boost_mtx complaints")
Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180309065630.8283-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Danny Lin <danny@kdrag0n.dev>
While reviewing another read_slowpath patch, both Will and I noticed
another missing ACQUIRE, namely:
X = 0;
CPU0 CPU1
rwsem_down_read()
for (;;) {
set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
X = 1;
rwsem_up_write();
rwsem_mark_wake()
atomic_long_add(adjustment, &sem->count);
smp_store_release(&waiter->task, NULL);
if (!waiter.task)
break;
...
}
r = X;
Allows 'r == 0'.
Reported-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reported-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Fixes: 1da177e4c3 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Danny Lin <danny@kdrag0n.dev>
LTP mtest06 has been observed to occasionally hit "still mapped when
deleted" and following BUG_ON on arm64.
The extra mapcount originated from pagefault handler, which handled
pagefault for vma that has already been detached. vma is detached
under mmap_sem write lock by detach_vmas_to_be_unmapped(), which
also invalidates vmacache.
When the pagefault handler (under mmap_sem read lock) calls
find_vma(), vmacache_valid() wrongly reports vmacache as valid.
After rwsem down_read() returns via 'queue empty' path (as of v5.2),
it does so without an ACQUIRE on sem->count:
down_read()
__down_read()
rwsem_down_read_failed()
__rwsem_down_read_failed_common()
raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
if (list_empty(&sem->wait_list)) {
if (atomic_long_read(&sem->count) >= 0) {
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
return sem;
The problem can be reproduced by running LTP mtest06 in a loop and
building the kernel (-j $NCPUS) in parallel. It does reproduces since
v4.20 on arm64 HPE Apollo 70 (224 CPUs, 256GB RAM, 2 nodes). It
triggers reliably in about an hour.
The patched kernel ran fine for 10+ hours.
Signed-off-by: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: dbueso@suse.de
Fixes: 4b486b535c33 ("locking/rwsem: Exit read lock slowpath if queue empty & no writer")
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/50b8914e20d1d62bb2dee42d342836c2c16ebee7.1563438048.git.jstancek@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Danny Lin <danny@kdrag0n.dev>
For writer, the owner value is cleared on unlock. For reader, it is
left intact on unlock for providing better debugging aid on crash dump
and the unlock of one reader may not mean the lock is free.
As a result, the owner_on_cpu() shouldn't be used on read-owner
as the task pointer value may not be valid and it might have
been freed. That is the case in rwsem_spin_on_owner(), but not in
rwsem_can_spin_on_owner(). This can lead to use-after-free error from
KASAN. For example,
BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in rwsem_down_write_slowpath
(/home/miguel/kernel/linux/kernel/locking/rwsem.c:669
/home/miguel/kernel/linux/kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1125)
Fix this by checking for RWSEM_READER_OWNED flag before calling
owner_on_cpu().
Reported-by: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.com>
Tested-by: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>
Fixes: 94a9717b3c40e ("locking/rwsem: Make rwsem->owner an atomic_long_t")
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/81e82d5b-5074-77e8-7204-28479bbe0df0@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Danny Lin <danny@kdrag0n.dev>
The upper bits of the count field is used as reader count. When
sufficient number of active readers are present, the most significant
bit will be set and the count becomes negative. If the number of active
readers keep on piling up, we may eventually overflow the reader counts.
This is not likely to happen unless the number of bits reserved for
reader count is reduced because those bits are need for other purpose.
To prevent this count overflow from happening, the most significant
bit is now treated as a guard bit (RWSEM_FLAG_READFAIL). Read-lock
attempts will now fail for both the fast and slow paths whenever this
bit is set. So all those extra readers will be put to sleep in the wait
list. Wakeup will not happen until the reader count reaches 0.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190520205918.22251-17-longman@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Danny Lin <danny@kdrag0n.dev>
Reader optimistic spinning is helpful when the reader critical section
is short and there aren't that many readers around. It makes readers
relatively more preferred than writers. When a writer times out spinning
on a reader-owned lock and set the nospinnable bits, there are two main
reasons for that.
1) The reader critical section is long, perhaps the task sleeps after
acquiring the read lock.
2) There are just too many readers contending the lock causing it to
take a while to service all of them.
In the former case, long reader critical section will impede the progress
of writers which is usually more important for system performance.
In the later case, reader optimistic spinning tends to make the reader
groups that contain readers that acquire the lock together smaller
leading to more of them. That may hurt performance in some cases. In
other words, the setting of nonspinnable bits indicates that reader
optimistic spinning may not be helpful for those workloads that cause it.
Therefore, any writers that have observed the setting of the writer
nonspinnable bit for a given rwsem after they fail to acquire the lock
via optimistic spinning will set the reader nonspinnable bit once they
acquire the write lock. Similarly, readers that observe the setting
of reader nonspinnable bit at slowpath entry will also set the reader
nonspinnable bit when they acquire the read lock via the wakeup path.
Once the reader nonspinnable bit is on, it will only be reset when
a writer is able to acquire the rwsem in the fast path or somehow a
reader or writer in the slowpath doesn't observe the nonspinable bit.
This is to discourage reader optmistic spinning on that particular
rwsem and make writers more preferred. This adaptive disabling of reader
optimistic spinning will alleviate some of the negative side effect of
this feature.
In addition, this patch tries to make readers in the spinning queue
follow the phase-fair principle after quitting optimistic spinning
by checking if another reader has somehow acquired a read lock after
this reader enters the optimistic spinning queue. If so and the rwsem
is still reader-owned, this reader is in the right read-phase and can
attempt to acquire the lock.
On a 2-socket 40-core 80-thread Skylake system, the page_fault1 test of
the will-it-scale benchmark was run with various number of threads. The
number of operations done before reader optimistic spinning patches,
this patch and after this patch were:
Threads Before rspin Before patch After patch %change
------- ------------ ------------ ----------- -------
20 5541068 5345484 5455667 -3.5%/ +2.1%
40 10185150 7292313 9219276 -28.5%/+26.4%
60 8196733 6460517 7181209 -21.2%/+11.2%
80 9508864 6739559 8107025 -29.1%/+20.3%
This patch doesn't recover all the lost performance, but it is more
than half. Given the fact that reader optimistic spinning does benefit
some workloads, this is a good compromise.
Using the rwsem locking microbenchmark with very short critical section,
this patch doesn't have too much impact on locking performance as shown
by the locking rates (kops/s) below with equal numbers of readers and
writers before and after this patch:
# of Threads Pre-patch Post-patch
------------ --------- ----------
2 4,730 4,969
4 4,814 4,786
8 4,866 4,815
16 4,715 4,511
32 3,338 3,500
64 3,212 3,389
80 3,110 3,044
When running the locking microbenchmark with 40 dedicated reader and writer
threads, however, the reader performance is curtailed to favor the writer.
Before patch:
40 readers, Iterations Min/Mean/Max = 204,026/234,309/254,816
40 writers, Iterations Min/Mean/Max = 88,515/95,884/115,644
After patch:
40 readers, Iterations Min/Mean/Max = 33,813/35,260/36,791
40 writers, Iterations Min/Mean/Max = 95,368/96,565/97,798
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190520205918.22251-16-longman@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Danny Lin <danny@kdrag0n.dev>
When the rwsem is owned by reader, writers stop optimistic spinning
simply because there is no easy way to figure out if all the readers
are actively running or not. However, there are scenarios where
the readers are unlikely to sleep and optimistic spinning can help
performance.
This patch provides a simple mechanism for spinning on a reader-owned
rwsem by a writer. It is a time threshold based spinning where the
allowable spinning time can vary from 10us to 25us depending on the
condition of the rwsem.
When the time threshold is exceeded, the nonspinnable bits will be set
in the owner field to indicate that no more optimistic spinning will
be allowed on this rwsem until it becomes writer owned again. Not even
readers is allowed to acquire the reader-locked rwsem by optimistic
spinning for fairness.
We also want a writer to acquire the lock after the readers hold the
lock for a relatively long time. In order to give preference to writers
under such a circumstance, the single RWSEM_NONSPINNABLE bit is now split
into two - one for reader and one for writer. When optimistic spinning
is disabled, both bits will be set. When the reader count drop down
to 0, the writer nonspinnable bit will be cleared to allow writers to
spin on the lock, but not the readers. When a writer acquires the lock,
it will write its own task structure pointer into sem->owner and clear
the reader nonspinnable bit in the process.
The time taken for each iteration of the reader-owned rwsem spinning
loop varies. Below are sample minimum elapsed times for 16 iterations
of the loop.
System Time for 16 Iterations
------ ----------------------
1-socket Skylake ~800ns
4-socket Broadwell ~300ns
2-socket ThunderX2 (arm64) ~250ns
When the lock cacheline is contended, we can see up to almost 10X
increase in elapsed time. So 25us will be at most 500, 1300 and 1600
iterations for each of the above systems.
With a locking microbenchmark running on 5.1 based kernel, the total
locking rates (in kops/s) on a 8-socket IvyBridge-EX system with
equal numbers of readers and writers before and after this patch were
as follows:
# of Threads Pre-patch Post-patch
------------ --------- ----------
2 1,759 6,684
4 1,684 6,738
8 1,074 7,222
16 900 7,163
32 458 7,316
64 208 520
128 168 425
240 143 474
This patch gives a big boost in performance for mixed reader/writer
workloads.
With 32 locking threads, the rwsem lock event data were:
rwsem_opt_fail=79850
rwsem_opt_nospin=5069
rwsem_opt_rlock=597484
rwsem_opt_wlock=957339
rwsem_sleep_reader=57782
rwsem_sleep_writer=55663
With 64 locking threads, the data looked like:
rwsem_opt_fail=346723
rwsem_opt_nospin=6293
rwsem_opt_rlock=1127119
rwsem_opt_wlock=1400628
rwsem_sleep_reader=308201
rwsem_sleep_writer=72281
So a lot more threads acquired the lock in the slowpath and more threads
went to sleep.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190520205918.22251-15-longman@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Danny Lin <danny@kdrag0n.dev>
This patch enables readers to optimistically spin on a
rwsem when it is owned by a writer instead of going to sleep
directly. The rwsem_can_spin_on_owner() function is extracted
out of rwsem_optimistic_spin() and is called directly by
rwsem_down_read_slowpath() and rwsem_down_write_slowpath().
With a locking microbenchmark running on 5.1 based kernel, the total
locking rates (in kops/s) on a 8-socket IvyBrige-EX system with equal
numbers of readers and writers before and after the patch were as
follows:
# of Threads Pre-patch Post-patch
------------ --------- ----------
4 1,674 1,684
8 1,062 1,074
16 924 900
32 300 458
64 195 208
128 164 168
240 149 143
The performance change wasn't significant in this case, but this change
is required by a follow-on patch.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190520205918.22251-13-longman@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Danny Lin <danny@kdrag0n.dev>
When the front of the wait queue is a reader, other readers
immediately following the first reader will also be woken up at the
same time. However, if there is a writer in between. Those readers
behind the writer will not be woken up.
Because of optimistic spinning, the lock acquisition order is not FIFO
anyway. The lock handoff mechanism will ensure that lock starvation
will not happen.
Assuming that the lock hold times of the other readers still in the
queue will be about the same as the readers that are being woken up,
there is really not much additional cost other than the additional
latency due to the wakeup of additional tasks by the waker. Therefore
all the readers up to a maximum of 256 in the queue are woken up when
the first waiter is a reader to improve reader throughput. This is
somewhat similar in concept to a phase-fair R/W lock.
With a locking microbenchmark running on 5.1 based kernel, the total
locking rates (in kops/s) on a 8-socket IvyBridge-EX system with
equal numbers of readers and writers before and after this patch were
as follows:
# of Threads Pre-Patch Post-patch
------------ --------- ----------
4 1,641 1,674
8 731 1,062
16 564 924
32 78 300
64 38 195
240 50 149
There is no performance gain at low contention level. At high contention
level, however, this patch gives a pretty decent performance boost.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190520205918.22251-11-longman@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Danny Lin <danny@kdrag0n.dev>
