From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>, Chuck Lever <cel@citi.umich.edu>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC v4] wait: prevent waiter starvation in __wait_on_bit_lock
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:25:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090122202550.GA5726@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090121213813.GB23270@cmpxchg.org>
On 01/21, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>
> @@ -187,6 +187,31 @@ __wait_on_bit_lock(wait_queue_head_t *wq, struct wait_bit_queue *q,
> }
> } while (test_and_set_bit(q->key.bit_nr, q->key.flags));
> finish_wait(wq, &q->wait);
> + if (unlikely(ret)) {
> + /*
> + * Contenders are woken exclusively. If we were woken
> + * by an unlock we have to take the lock ourselves and
> + * wake the next contender on unlock. But the waiting
> + * function failed, we do not take the lock and won't
> + * unlock in the future. Make sure the next contender
> + * does not wait forever on an unlocked bit.
> + *
> + * We can also get here without being woken through
> + * the waitqueue, so there is a small chance of doing a
> + * bogus wake up between an unlock clearing the bit and
> + * the next contender being woken up and setting it again.
> + *
> + * It does no harm, though, the scheduler will ignore it
> + * as the process in question is already running.
> + *
> + * The unlock path clears the bit and then wakes up the
> + * next contender. If the next contender is us, the
> + * barrier makes sure we also see the bit cleared.
> + */
> + smp_rmb();
> + if (!test_bit(q->key.bit_nr, q->key.flags)))
> + __wake_up_bit(wq, q->key.flags, q->key.bit_nr);
I think this is correct, and (unfortunately ;) you are right:
we need rmb() even after finish_wait().
And we have to check ret twice, and the false wakeup is still
possible. This is minor, but just for discussion, can't we do
this differently?
int finish_wait_xxx(wait_queue_head_t *q, wait_queue_t *wait)
{
unsigned long flags;
int woken;
__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
woken = list_empty(&wait->task_list);
list_del_init(&wait->task_list);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
return woken;
}
Now, __wait_on_bit_lock() does:
if (test_bit(q->key.bit_nr, q->key.flags)) {
if ((ret = (*action)(q->key.flags))) {
if (finish_wait_xxx(...))
__wake_up_bit(...);
return ret;
}
}
Or we can introduce
int finish_wait_yyy(wait_queue_head_t *q, wait_queue_t *wait,
int mode, void *key)
{
unsigned long flags;
int woken;
__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
woken = list_empty(&wait->task_list);
if (woken)
__wake_up_common(q, mode, 1, key);
else
list_del_init(&wait->task_list);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
return woken;
}
Perhaps a bit too much for this particular case, but I am thinking
about other cases when we need to abort the exclusive wait.
For example, don't we have the similar problems with
wait_event_interruptible_exclusive() ?
Oleg.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>, Chuck Lever <cel@citi.umich.edu>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC v4] wait: prevent waiter starvation in __wait_on_bit_lock
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:25:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090122202550.GA5726@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090121213813.GB23270@cmpxchg.org>
On 01/21, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>
> @@ -187,6 +187,31 @@ __wait_on_bit_lock(wait_queue_head_t *wq, struct wait_bit_queue *q,
> }
> } while (test_and_set_bit(q->key.bit_nr, q->key.flags));
> finish_wait(wq, &q->wait);
> + if (unlikely(ret)) {
> + /*
> + * Contenders are woken exclusively. If we were woken
> + * by an unlock we have to take the lock ourselves and
> + * wake the next contender on unlock. But the waiting
> + * function failed, we do not take the lock and won't
> + * unlock in the future. Make sure the next contender
> + * does not wait forever on an unlocked bit.
> + *
> + * We can also get here without being woken through
> + * the waitqueue, so there is a small chance of doing a
> + * bogus wake up between an unlock clearing the bit and
> + * the next contender being woken up and setting it again.
> + *
> + * It does no harm, though, the scheduler will ignore it
> + * as the process in question is already running.
> + *
> + * The unlock path clears the bit and then wakes up the
> + * next contender. If the next contender is us, the
> + * barrier makes sure we also see the bit cleared.
> + */
> + smp_rmb();
> + if (!test_bit(q->key.bit_nr, q->key.flags)))
> + __wake_up_bit(wq, q->key.flags, q->key.bit_nr);
I think this is correct, and (unfortunately ;) you are right:
we need rmb() even after finish_wait().
And we have to check ret twice, and the false wakeup is still
possible. This is minor, but just for discussion, can't we do
this differently?
int finish_wait_xxx(wait_queue_head_t *q, wait_queue_t *wait)
{
unsigned long flags;
int woken;
__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
woken = list_empty(&wait->task_list);
list_del_init(&wait->task_list);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
return woken;
}
Now, __wait_on_bit_lock() does:
if (test_bit(q->key.bit_nr, q->key.flags)) {
if ((ret = (*action)(q->key.flags))) {
if (finish_wait_xxx(...))
__wake_up_bit(...);
return ret;
}
}
Or we can introduce
int finish_wait_yyy(wait_queue_head_t *q, wait_queue_t *wait,
int mode, void *key)
{
unsigned long flags;
int woken;
__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
woken = list_empty(&wait->task_list);
if (woken)
__wake_up_common(q, mode, 1, key);
else
list_del_init(&wait->task_list);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
return woken;
}
Perhaps a bit too much for this particular case, but I am thinking
about other cases when we need to abort the exclusive wait.
For example, don't we have the similar problems with
wait_event_interruptible_exclusive() ?
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-22 20:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-17 21:51 + lock_page_killable-avoid-lost-wakeups.patch added to -mm tree Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-18 1:38 ` [PATCH v3] wait: prevent waiter starvation in __wait_on_bit_lock Johannes Weiner
2009-01-18 1:38 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-01-18 2:32 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-18 2:32 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-20 20:31 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-01-20 20:31 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-01-21 14:36 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-21 14:36 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-21 21:38 ` [RFC v4] " Johannes Weiner
2009-01-21 21:38 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-01-22 20:25 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2009-01-22 20:25 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-23 0:26 ` Dmitry Adamushko
2009-01-23 0:26 ` Dmitry Adamushko
2009-01-23 0:47 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-23 0:47 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-23 10:07 ` Dmitry Adamushko
2009-01-23 10:07 ` Dmitry Adamushko
2009-01-23 11:05 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-23 11:05 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-23 12:36 ` Dmitry Adamushko
2009-01-23 12:36 ` Dmitry Adamushko
2009-01-23 9:59 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-01-23 9:59 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-01-23 11:35 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-23 11:35 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-23 13:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-23 13:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-26 21:59 ` [RFC v5] wait: prevent exclusive waiter starvation Johannes Weiner
2009-01-26 21:59 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-01-27 3:23 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-27 3:23 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-27 19:34 ` [RFC v6] " Johannes Weiner
2009-01-27 19:34 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-01-27 20:05 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-27 20:05 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-27 22:31 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-01-27 22:31 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-01-28 9:14 ` [RFC v7] " Johannes Weiner
2009-01-28 9:14 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-01-29 4:42 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-29 4:42 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-29 7:37 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-29 7:37 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-29 8:31 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-29 8:31 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-29 9:11 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-29 9:11 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-29 14:34 ` Chris Mason
2009-01-29 14:34 ` Chris Mason
2009-02-02 15:47 ` Chris Mason
2009-02-02 15:47 ` Chris Mason
2009-01-23 19:24 ` [RFC v4] wait: prevent waiter starvation in __wait_on_bit_lock Johannes Weiner
2009-01-23 19:24 ` Johannes Weiner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090122202550.GA5726@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cel@citi.umich.edu \
--cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.