lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 14/16] locking/rwsem: Guard against making count negative
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 12:49:05PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 4/24/19 3:09 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 03:12:16PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> That is true in general, but doing preempt_disable/enable across
> >> function boundary is ugly and prone to further problems down the road.
> > We do worse things in this code, and the thing Linus proposes is
> > actually quite simple, something like so:
> >
> > ---
> > --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> > +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> > @@ -912,7 +904,7 @@ rwsem_down_read_slowpath(struct rw_semap
> > raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> > break;
> > }
> > - schedule();
> > + schedule_preempt_disabled();
> > lockevent_inc(rwsem_sleep_reader);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -1121,6 +1113,7 @@ static struct rw_semaphore *rwsem_downgr
> > */
> > inline void __down_read(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> > {
> > + preempt_disable();
> > if (unlikely(atomic_long_fetch_add_acquire(RWSEM_READER_BIAS,
> > &sem->count) & RWSEM_READ_FAILED_MASK)) {
> > rwsem_down_read_slowpath(sem, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> > @@ -1129,10 +1122,12 @@ inline void __down_read(struct rw_semaph
> > } else {
> > rwsem_set_reader_owned(sem);
> > }
> > + preempt_enable();
> > }
> >
> > static inline int __down_read_killable(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> > {
> > + preempt_disable();
> > if (unlikely(atomic_long_fetch_add_acquire(RWSEM_READER_BIAS,
> > &sem->count) & RWSEM_READ_FAILED_MASK)) {
> > if (IS_ERR(rwsem_down_read_slowpath(sem, TASK_KILLABLE)))
> > @@ -1142,6 +1137,7 @@ static inline int __down_read_killable(s
> > } else {
> > rwsem_set_reader_owned(sem);
> > }
> > + preempt_enable();
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
>
> Making that change will help the slowpath to has less preemption points.

That doesn't matter, right? Either it blocks or it goes through quickly.

If you're worried about a parituclar spot we can easily put in explicit
preemption points.

> For an uncontended rwsem, this offers no real benefit. Adding
> preempt_disable() is more complicated than I originally thought.

I'm not sure I get your objection?

> Maybe we are too paranoid about the possibility of a large number of
> preemptions happening just at the right moment. If p is the probably of
> a preemption in the middle of the inc-check-dec sequence, which I have
> already moved as close to each other as possible. We are talking a
> probability of p^32768. Since p will be really small, the compound
> probability will be infinitesimally small.

Sure; but we run on many millions of machines every second, so the
actual accumulated chance of it happening eventually is still fairly
significant.

> So I would like to not do preemption now for the current patchset. We
> can restart the discussion later on if there is a real concern that it
> may actually happen. Please let me know if you still want to add
> preempt_disable() for the read lock.

I like provably correct schemes over prayers.

As you noted, distros don't usually ship with PREEMPT=y and therefore
will not be bothered much by any of this.

The old scheme basically worked by the fact that the total supported
reader count was higher than the number of addressable pages in the
system and therefore the overflow could not happen.

We now transition to number of CPUs, and for that we pay a little price
with PREEMPT=y kernels. Either that or cmpxchg.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-24 19:02    [W:0.143 / U:1.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site