Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 27 Nov 2017 13:10:31 +0000 | From | Will Deacon <> | Subject | Re: [bisected] system hang after boot |
| |
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 02:00:28PM +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:54:56 +0000 > Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 01:49:18PM +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > > > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 11:49:48 +0000 > > > Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 09:22:17PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 06:26:59PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I can't see what the break_lock is doing here other than causing > > > > > > problems. Is there a good reason for it, or can you just try removing it > > > > > > altogether? Patch below. > > > > > > > > > > The main use is spin_is_contended(), which in turn ends up used in > > > > > __cond_resched_lock() through spin_needbreak(). > > > > > > > > > > This allows better lock wait times for PREEMPT kernels on platforms > > > > > where the lock implementation itself cannot provide 'contended' state. > > > > > > > > > > In that capacity the write-write race shouldn't be a problem though. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure why it isn't a problem: given that the break_lock variable > > > > can read as 1 for a lock that is no longer contended and 0 for a lock that > > > > is currently contended, then the __cond_resched_lock is likely to see a > > > > value of 0 (i.e. spin_needbreak always return false) more often than no > > > > since it's checked by the lock holder. > > > > > > Grepping for 'break_lock' the two locking blueprints are the only places > > > where the field is written to. Unless I am blind, the associated unlock > > > functions do *not* reset 'break_lock'. > > > > > > Without the raw_##op##_can_lock(lock) check the first of the blueprints > > > now looks like this: > > > > > > void __lockfunc __raw_##op##_lock(locktype##_t *lock) \ > > > { \ > > > for (;;) { \ > > > preempt_disable(); \ > > > if (likely(do_raw_##op##_trylock(lock))) \ > > > break; \ > > > preempt_enable(); \ > > > \ > > > if (!(lock)->break_lock) \ > > > (lock)->break_lock = 1; \ > > > while ((lock)->break_lock) \ > > > arch_##op##_relax(&lock->raw_lock); \ > > > } \ > > > (lock)->break_lock = 0; \ > > > } \ > > > > > > All it takes to create an endless loop is two CPUs, the first acquired the > > > lock and the second tries to get the lock. After the unsuccessful trylock > > > of the second CPU, the first CPU releases the lock and never tries to take > > > it again. The second CPU will be stuck in an endless loop. > > > > Yes, it basically relies on the lock holder never winning that race. > > However, Peter's use-case just needs the lock-holder to be able to detect > > contention (which is always best-effort anyway), so I think we can make that > > "work" by removing the while loop above (see my subsequent diff sent to > > Sebastian). > > Well, what race? The lock hold just has to hold the lock while another CPU > tries to get it. There is no particular bad timing involved, just a little > bit of contention is enough.
Yes, you're right. I keep forgetting that break_lock isn't cleared on unlock.
> And yes, I think removing the while loop on break_lock will work. > > > It's still questionable, because on a machine with store-buffers you really > > want to order writes to break_lock against something else, but it might > > happen to fall out depending on the details of the trylock() implementation. > > Even more, if the compiler "proves" that nobody writes to break_lock it can > convert that to "while (1)" loop.
break_lock should be annotated (at least) with READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE, which should prevent that from happening.
> > > I guess my best course of action is to remove GENERIC_LOCKBREAK from > > > arch/s390/Kconfig to avoid this construct altogether. Let us see what > > > breaks if I do that .. > > > > We could just consider ripping out GENERIC_LOCKBREAK entirely, but I was > > hoping we could get a simpler fix in for now. > > I would opt for removing it entirely.
I'll cook a patch series, with the first patch just removing the while loop and subsequent patches removing the stuff altogether.
Will
| |