From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>,
Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC: console: hack up console_lock more v3
Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 15:36:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190509133647.GX2623@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uGuOFGEuw1m_fiBfGbAEY0eeoDEFtP7Htt8-RCzD66MGw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 03:06:09PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 2:31 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 02:09:03PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > Fix this by creating a prinkt_safe_up() which calls wake_up_process
> > > outside of the spinlock. This isn't correct in full generality, but
> > > good enough for console_lock:
> > >
> > > - console_lock doesn't use interruptible or killable or timeout down()
> > > calls, hence an up() is the only thing that can wake up a process.
> >
> > Wrong :/ Any task can be woken at any random time. We must, at all
> > times, assume spurious wakeups will happen.
>
> Out of curiosity, where do these come from? I know about the races
> where you need to recheck on the waiter side to avoid getting stuck,
> but didn't know about this. Are these earlier (possibly spurious)
> wakeups that got held up and delayed for a while, then hit the task
> much later when it's already continued doing something else?
Yes, this. So they all more or less have the form:
CPU0 CPU1
enqueue_waiter()
done = true;
if (waiters)
for (;;) {
if (done)
break;
...
}
dequeue_waiter()
do something else again
wake_up_task
<gets wakeup>
The wake_q thing made the above much more common, but we've had it
forever.
> Or even
> more random, and even if I never put a task on a wait list or anything
> else, ever, it can get woken spuriously?
I had patches that did that on purpose, but no.
> > Something like the below might work.
>
> Yeah that looks like the proper fix. I guess semaphores are uncritical
> enough that we can roll this out for everyone. Thanks for the hint.
It's actually an optimization that we never did because semaphores are
so uncritical :-)
The thing is, by delaying the wakup until after we've released the
spinlock, the waiter will not contend on the spinlock the moment it
wakes.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-09 13:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-09 12:09 [PATCH] RFC: console: hack up console_lock more v3 Daniel Vetter
2019-05-09 12:21 ` Chris Wilson
2019-05-09 12:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-09 13:06 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-05-09 13:36 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2019-05-09 14:56 ` Petr Mladek
2019-05-09 16:43 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-05-10 9:15 ` Petr Mladek
2019-05-10 9:51 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2019-05-10 15:05 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-05-09 15:14 ` ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for RFC: console: hack up console_lock more v3 (rev2) Patchwork
2019-05-09 20:06 ` [PATCH] kernel/locking/semaphore: use wake_q in up() Daniel Vetter
2019-05-10 5:50 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2019-05-10 7:51 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-05-10 9:28 ` Petr Mladek
2019-05-10 15:20 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-05-15 11:53 ` Petr Mladek
2019-05-09 20:41 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for RFC: console: hack up console_lock more v3 (rev3) Patchwork
2019-05-10 6:33 ` ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " Patchwork
2019-05-10 11:23 ` ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for RFC: console: hack up console_lock more v3 (rev4) Patchwork
2019-05-10 11:44 ` ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure " Patchwork
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=20190509133647.GX2623@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
--cc=daniel.vetter@intel.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=john.ogness@linutronix.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/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