lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] rwsem: fix missed wakeup due to reordering of load
From
Date
On 08/24/2017 06:22 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 02:33:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 01:29:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>
>>> WTH did you not Cc the people that commented on your patch last time?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 04:58:55PM +0530, Prateek Sood wrote:
>>>> If a spinner is present, there is a chance that the load of
>>>> rwsem_has_spinner() in rwsem_wake() can be reordered with
>>>> respect to decrement of rwsem count in __up_write() leading
>>>> to wakeup being missed.
>>>
>>>> spinning writer up_write caller
>>>> --------------- -----------------------
>>>> [S] osq_unlock() [L] osq
>>>> spin_lock(wait_lock)
>>>> sem->count=0xFFFFFFFF00000001
>>>> +0xFFFFFFFF00000000
>>>> count=sem->count
>>>> MB
>>>> sem->count=0xFFFFFFFE00000001
>>>> -0xFFFFFFFF00000001
>>>> RMB
>>>
>>> This doesn't make sense, it appears to order a STORE against something
>>> else.
>>>
>>>> spin_trylock(wait_lock)
>>>> return
>>>> rwsem_try_write_lock(count)
>>>> spin_unlock(wait_lock)
>>>> schedule()
>>
>> Is this what you wanted to write?
>
> And ideally there should be a comment near the atomic_long_add_return()
> in __rwsem_down_write_failed_common() to indicate we rely on the implied
> smp_mb() before it -- just in case someone goes and makes it
> atomic_long_add_return_relaxed().
>
> And I suppose someone should look at the waiting branch of that thing
> too.. because I'm not sure what happens if waiting is true but count
> isn't big enough.
>
> I bloody hate the rwsem code, that BIAS stuff forever confuses me. I
> have a start at rewriting the thing to put the owner in the lock word
> just like we now do for mutex, but never seem to get around to finishing
> it.
>
>> ---
>> kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
>> index 02f660666ab8..813b5d3654ce 100644
>> --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
>> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
>> @@ -613,6 +613,33 @@ struct rw_semaphore *rwsem_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>> DEFINE_WAKE_Q(wake_q);
>>
>> /*
>> + * __rwsem_down_write_failed_common(sem)
>> + * rwsem_optimistic_spin(sem)
>> + * osq_unlock(sem->osq)
>> + * ...
>> + * atomic_long_add_return(&sem->count)
>> + *
>> + * - VS -
>> + *
>> + * __up_write()
>> + * if (atomic_long_sub_return_release(&sem->count) < 0)
>> + * rwsem_wake(sem)
>> + * osq_is_locked(&sem->osq)
>> + *
>> + * And __up_write() must observe !osq_is_locked() when it observes the
>> + * atomic_long_add_return() in order to not miss a wakeup.
>> + *
>> + * This boils down to:
>> + *
>> + * [S.rel] X = 1 [RmW] r0 = (Y += 0)
>> + * MB RMB
>> + * [RmW] Y += 1 [L] r1 = X
>> + *
>> + * exists (r0=1 /\ r1=0)
>> + */
>> + smp_rmb();
>> +
>> + /*
>> * If a spinner is present, it is not necessary to do the wakeup.
>> * Try to do wakeup only if the trylock succeeds to minimize
>> * spinlock contention which may introduce too much delay in the

Thanks Peter for your suggestion on comments.
I will resend the patch with updated comments

--
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation
Center, Inc., is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation
Collaborative Project

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-07 16:09    [W:0.044 / U:2.244 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site