lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] locking: rwbase: Take care of ordering guarantee for fastpath reader
Date
On 9/1/21 11:06 AM, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Readers of rwbase can lock and unlock without taking any inner lock, if
> that happens, we need the ordering provided by atomic operations to
> satisfy the ordering semantics of lock/unlock. Without that, considering
> the follow case:
>
> { X = 0 initially }
>
> CPU 0 CPU 1
> ===== =====
> rt_write_lock();
> X = 1
> rt_write_unlock():
> atomic_add(READER_BIAS - WRITER_BIAS, ->readers);
> // ->readers is READER_BIAS.
> rt_read_lock():
> if ((r = atomic_read(->readers)) < 0) // True
> atomic_try_cmpxchg(->readers, r, r + 1); // succeed.
> <acquire the read lock via fast path>
>
> r1 = X; // r1 may be 0, because nothing prevent the reordering
> // of "X=1" and atomic_add() on CPU 1.
>
> Therefore audit every usage of atomic operations that may happen in a
> fast path, and add necessary barriers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
> ---
> Hi Thomas and Peter,
>
> Sorry I'm late for the party of PREEMPT_RT lock review. Just want to
> point the problem with this patch. Not even compile test, but show the
> idea and check if I'm missing something subtle.
>
> Regards,
> Boqun
>
>
> kernel/locking/rwbase_rt.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwbase_rt.c b/kernel/locking/rwbase_rt.c
> index 4ba15088e640..a1886fd8bde6 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/rwbase_rt.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwbase_rt.c
> @@ -41,6 +41,12 @@
> * The risk of writer starvation is there, but the pathological use cases
> * which trigger it are not necessarily the typical RT workloads.
> *
> + * Fast-path orderings:
> + * The lock/unlock of readers can run in fast paths: lock and unlock are only
> + * atomic ops, and there is no inner lock to provide ACQUIRE and RELEASE
> + * semantics of rwbase_rt. Atomic ops then should be stronger than _acquire()
> + * and _release() to provide necessary ordering guarantee.
> + *
> * Common code shared between RT rw_semaphore and rwlock
> */
>
> @@ -53,6 +59,7 @@ static __always_inline int rwbase_read_trylock(struct rwbase_rt *rwb)
> * set.
> */
> for (r = atomic_read(&rwb->readers); r < 0;) {
> + /* Fully-ordered if cmpxchg() succeeds, provides ACQUIRE */
> if (likely(atomic_try_cmpxchg(&rwb->readers, &r, r + 1)))

Should we also change *cmpxchg() to cmpxchg_acquire() as it is a little
cheaper for ll/sc arches?

The other changes look good to me.

Cheers,
Longman

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-09-01 20:57    [W:0.229 / U:1.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site