Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH-tip v2 02/12] locking/rwsem: Implement lock handoff to prevent lock starvation | From | Waiman Long <> | Date | Wed, 10 Apr 2019 22:25:16 -0400 |
| |
On 04/10/2019 02:44 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 03:21:05PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >> Because of writer lock stealing, it is possible that a constant >> stream of incoming writers will cause a waiting writer or reader to >> wait indefinitely leading to lock starvation. >> >> The mutex code has a lock handoff mechanism to prevent lock starvation. >> This patch implements a similar lock handoff mechanism to disable >> lock stealing and force lock handoff to the first waiter in the queue >> after at least a 5ms waiting period. The waiting period is used to >> avoid discouraging lock stealing too much to affect performance. > I would say the handoff it not at all similar to the mutex code. It is > in fact radically different. >
I mean they are similar in concept. Of course, the implementations are quite different.
>> @@ -131,6 +138,15 @@ static void __rwsem_mark_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, >> adjustment = RWSEM_READER_BIAS; >> oldcount = atomic_long_fetch_add(adjustment, &sem->count); >> if (unlikely(oldcount & RWSEM_WRITER_MASK)) { >> + /* >> + * Initiate handoff to reader, if applicable. >> + */ >> + if (!(oldcount & RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF) && >> + time_after(jiffies, waiter->timeout)) { >> + adjustment -= RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF; >> + lockevent_inc(rwsem_rlock_handoff); >> + } >> + >> atomic_long_sub(adjustment, &sem->count); >> return; >> } > That confuses the heck out of me... > > The above seems to rely on __rwsem_mark_wake() to be fully serialized > (and it is, by ->wait_lock, but that isn't spelled out anywhere) such > that we don't get double increment of FLAG_HANDOFF. > > So there is NO __rwsem_mark_wake() vs __wesem_mark_wake() race like: > > CPU0 CPU1 > > oldcount = atomic_long_fetch_add(adjustment, &sem->count) > > oldcount = atomic_long_fetch_add(adjustment, &sem->count) > > if (!(oldcount & HANDOFF)) > adjustment -= HANDOFF; > > if (!(oldcount & HANDOFF)) > adjustment -= HANDOFF; > atomic_long_sub(adjustment) > atomic_long_sub(adjustment) > > > *whoops* double negative decrement of HANDOFF (aka double increment).
Yes, __rwsem_mark_wake() is always called with wait_lock held. I can add a lockdep_assert() statement to clarify this point.
> > However there is another site that fiddles with the HANDOFF bit, namely > __rwsem_down_write_failed_common(), and that does: > > + atomic_long_or(RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF, &sem->count); > > _OUTSIDE_ of ->wait_lock, which would yield: > > CPU0 CPU1 > > oldcount = atomic_long_fetch_add(adjustment, &sem->count) > > atomic_long_or(HANDOFF) > > if (!(oldcount & HANDOFF)) > adjustment -= HANDOFF; > > atomic_long_sub(adjustment) > > *whoops*, incremented HANDOFF on HANDOFF. > > > And there's not a comment in sight that would elucidate if this is > possible or not. >
A writer can only set the handoff bit if it is the first waiter in the queue. If it is the first waiter, a racing __rwsem_mark_wake() will see that the first waiter is a writer and so won't go into the reader path. I know I something don't spell out all the conditions that may look obvious to me but not to others. I will elaborate more in comments.
> Also: > > + atomic_long_or(RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF, &sem->count); > + first++; > + > + /* > + * Make sure the handoff bit is seen by > + * others before proceeding. > + */ > + smp_mb__after_atomic(); > > That comment is utter nonsense. smp_mb() doesn't (and cannot) 'make > visible'. There needs to be order between two memops on both sides. > I kind of add that for safety. I will take some time to rethink if it is really necessary.
Cheers, Longman
| |