dri-devel.lists.freedesktop.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Nicolai Hähnle" <nhaehnle@gmail.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: "Maarten Lankhorst" <dev@mblankhorst.nl>,
	"Nicolai Hähnle" <Nicolai.Haehnle@amd.com>,
	"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 02/11] locking/ww_mutex: Re-check ww->ctx in the inner optimistic spin loop
Date: Thu,  1 Dec 2016 15:06:45 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1480601214-26583-3-git-send-email-nhaehnle@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1480601214-26583-1-git-send-email-nhaehnle@gmail.com>

From: Nicolai Hähnle <Nicolai.Haehnle@amd.com>

In the following scenario, thread #1 should back off its attempt to lock
ww1 and unlock ww2 (assuming the acquire context stamps are ordered
accordingly).

    Thread #0               Thread #1
    ---------               ---------
                            successfully lock ww2
    set ww1->base.owner
                            attempt to lock ww1
                            confirm ww1->ctx == NULL
                            enter mutex_spin_on_owner
    set ww1->ctx

What was likely to happen previously is:

    attempt to lock ww2
    refuse to spin because
      ww2->ctx != NULL
    schedule()
                            detect thread #0 is off CPU
                            stop optimistic spin
                            return -EDEADLK
                            unlock ww2
                            wakeup thread #0
    lock ww2

Now, we are more likely to see:

                            detect ww1->ctx != NULL
                            stop optimistic spin
                            return -EDEADLK
                            unlock ww2
    successfully lock ww2

... because thread #1 will stop its optimistic spin as soon as possible.

The whole scenario is quite unlikely, since it requires thread #1 to get
between thread #0 setting the owner and setting the ctx. But since we're
idling here anyway, the additional check is basically free.

Found by inspection.

Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <dev@mblankhorst.nl>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Signed-off-by: Nicolai Hähnle <Nicolai.Haehnle@amd.com>
---
 kernel/locking/mutex.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
index 9b34961..0afa998 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -350,7 +350,8 @@ ww_mutex_set_context_slowpath(struct ww_mutex *lock,
  * access and not reliable.
  */
 static noinline
-bool mutex_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock, struct task_struct *owner)
+bool mutex_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock, struct task_struct *owner,
+			 bool use_ww_ctx, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx)
 {
 	bool ret = true;
 
@@ -373,6 +374,28 @@ bool mutex_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock, struct task_struct *owner)
 			break;
 		}
 
+		if (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx->acquired > 0) {
+			struct ww_mutex *ww;
+
+			ww = container_of(lock, struct ww_mutex, base);
+
+			/*
+			 * If ww->ctx is set the contents are undefined, only
+			 * by acquiring wait_lock there is a guarantee that
+			 * they are not invalid when reading.
+			 *
+			 * As such, when deadlock detection needs to be
+			 * performed the optimistic spinning cannot be done.
+			 *
+			 * Check this in every inner iteration because we may
+			 * be racing against another thread's ww_mutex_lock.
+			 */
+			if (READ_ONCE(ww->ctx)) {
+				ret = false;
+				break;
+			}
+		}
+
 		cpu_relax();
 	}
 	rcu_read_unlock();
@@ -460,22 +483,6 @@ static bool mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock,
 	for (;;) {
 		struct task_struct *owner;
 
-		if (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx->acquired > 0) {
-			struct ww_mutex *ww;
-
-			ww = container_of(lock, struct ww_mutex, base);
-			/*
-			 * If ww->ctx is set the contents are undefined, only
-			 * by acquiring wait_lock there is a guarantee that
-			 * they are not invalid when reading.
-			 *
-			 * As such, when deadlock detection needs to be
-			 * performed the optimistic spinning cannot be done.
-			 */
-			if (READ_ONCE(ww->ctx))
-				goto fail_unlock;
-		}
-
 		/*
 		 * If there's an owner, wait for it to either
 		 * release the lock or go to sleep.
@@ -487,7 +494,8 @@ static bool mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock,
 				break;
 			}
 
-			if (!mutex_spin_on_owner(lock, owner))
+			if (!mutex_spin_on_owner(lock, owner, use_ww_ctx,
+						 ww_ctx))
 				goto fail_unlock;
 		}
 
-- 
2.7.4

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-12-01 14:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <1480601214-26583-1-git-send-email-nhaehnle@gmail.com>
2016-12-01 14:06 ` [PATCH v2 01/11] drm/vgem: Use ww_mutex_(un)lock even with a NULL context Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-01 14:18   ` Chris Wilson
2016-12-01 15:14     ` Daniel Vetter
2016-12-01 16:24   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-01 14:06 ` Nicolai Hähnle [this message]
2016-12-01 14:36   ` [PATCH v2 02/11] locking/ww_mutex: Re-check ww->ctx in the inner optimistic spin loop Chris Wilson
2016-12-06 15:06   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-06 16:03     ` Waiman Long
2016-12-06 18:29       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-06 18:46         ` Waiman Long
2016-12-01 14:06 ` [PATCH v2 03/11] locking/ww_mutex: Extract stamp comparison to __ww_mutex_stamp_after Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-01 14:42   ` Chris Wilson
2016-12-01 14:06 ` [PATCH v2 04/11] locking/ww_mutex: Set use_ww_ctx even when locking without a context Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-06 15:14   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-06 15:25   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-16 13:17     ` Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-17  7:53       ` Maarten Lankhorst
2016-12-17 13:49       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-01 14:06 ` [PATCH v2 05/11] locking/ww_mutex: Add waiters in stamp order Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-01 15:59   ` Chris Wilson
2016-12-16 14:21     ` Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-06 15:36   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-16 13:34     ` Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-06 16:55   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-16 14:19     ` Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-16 14:46       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-16 17:15       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-16 18:11         ` Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-16 20:00           ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-16 22:35             ` Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-16 17:20       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-16 18:12         ` Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-01 14:06 ` [PATCH v2 06/11] locking/ww_mutex: Notify waiters that have to back off while adding tasks to wait list Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-01 14:06 ` [PATCH v2 07/11] locking/ww_mutex: Wake at most one waiter for back off when acquiring the lock Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-01 14:06 ` [PATCH v2 08/11] locking/ww_mutex: Yield to other waiters from optimistic spin Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-01 14:06 ` [PATCH v2 09/11] locking/mutex: Initialize mutex_waiter::ww_ctx with poison when debugging Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-01 14:06 ` [PATCH v2 10/11] Documentation/locking/ww_mutex: Update the design document Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-01 14:06 ` [PATCH v2 11/11] [rfc] locking/ww_mutex: Always spin optimistically for the first waiter Nicolai Hähnle

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=1480601214-26583-3-git-send-email-nhaehnle@gmail.com \
    --to=nhaehnle@gmail.com \
    --cc=Nicolai.Haehnle@amd.com \
    --cc=dev@mblankhorst.nl \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).