From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Barret Rhoden <brho@google.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>,
Dohyun Kim <dohyunkim@google.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kkd@meta.com,
kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v4 11/25] rqspinlock: Protect waiters in trylock fallback from stalls
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2025 21:05:27 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250316040541.108729-12-memxor@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250316040541.108729-1-memxor@gmail.com>
When we run out of maximum rqnodes, the original queued spin lock slow
path falls back to a try lock. In such a case, we are again susceptible
to stalls in case the lock owner fails to make progress. We use the
timeout as a fallback to break out of this loop and return to the
caller. This is a fallback for an extreme edge case, when on the same
CPU we run out of all 4 qnodes. When could this happen? We are in slow
path in task context, we get interrupted by an IRQ, which while in the
slow path gets interrupted by an NMI, whcih in the slow path gets
another nested NMI, which enters the slow path. All of the interruptions
happen after node->count++.
We use RES_DEF_TIMEOUT as our spinning duration, but in the case of this
fallback, no fairness is guaranteed, so the duration may be too small
for contended cases, as the waiting time is not bounded. Since this is
an extreme corner case, let's just prefer timing out instead of
attempting to spin for longer.
Reviewed-by: Barret Rhoden <brho@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
---
kernel/bpf/rqspinlock.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/rqspinlock.c b/kernel/bpf/rqspinlock.c
index 65c2b41d8937..361d452f027c 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/rqspinlock.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/rqspinlock.c
@@ -275,8 +275,14 @@ int __lockfunc resilient_queued_spin_lock_slowpath(rqspinlock_t *lock, u32 val)
*/
if (unlikely(idx >= _Q_MAX_NODES)) {
lockevent_inc(lock_no_node);
- while (!queued_spin_trylock(lock))
+ RES_RESET_TIMEOUT(ts, RES_DEF_TIMEOUT);
+ while (!queued_spin_trylock(lock)) {
+ if (RES_CHECK_TIMEOUT(ts, ret)) {
+ lockevent_inc(rqspinlock_lock_timeout);
+ break;
+ }
cpu_relax();
+ }
goto release;
}
--
2.47.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-16 4:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-16 4:05 [PATCH bpf-next v4 00/25] Resilient Queued Spin Lock Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-16 4:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 01/25] locking: Move MCS struct definition to public header Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-16 4:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 02/25] locking: Move common qspinlock helpers to a private header Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-16 4:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 03/25] locking: Allow obtaining result of arch_mcs_spin_lock_contended Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-16 4:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 04/25] locking: Copy out qspinlock.c to kernel/bpf/rqspinlock.c Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-16 4:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 05/25] rqspinlock: Add rqspinlock.h header Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-16 4:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 06/25] rqspinlock: Drop PV and virtualization support Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-16 4:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 07/25] rqspinlock: Add support for timeouts Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-16 4:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 08/25] rqspinlock: Hardcode cond_acquire loops for arm64 Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-16 4:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 09/25] rqspinlock: Protect pending bit owners from stalls Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-16 4:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 10/25] rqspinlock: Protect waiters in queue " Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-16 4:05 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi [this message]
2025-03-16 4:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 12/25] rqspinlock: Add deadlock detection and recovery Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-16 4:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 13/25] rqspinlock: Add a test-and-set fallback Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-16 4:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 14/25] rqspinlock: Add basic support for CONFIG_PARAVIRT Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-16 4:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 15/25] rqspinlock: Add helper to print a splat on timeout or deadlock Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-16 4:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 16/25] rqspinlock: Add macros for rqspinlock usage Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-16 4:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 17/25] rqspinlock: Add entry to Makefile, MAINTAINERS Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-16 4:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 18/25] rqspinlock: Add locktorture support Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-16 4:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 19/25] bpf: Convert hashtab.c to rqspinlock Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-16 4:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 20/25] bpf: Convert percpu_freelist.c " Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-16 4:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 21/25] bpf: Convert lpm_trie.c " Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-16 4:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 22/25] bpf: Introduce rqspinlock kfuncs Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-16 4:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 23/25] bpf: Implement verifier support for rqspinlock Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-16 4:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 24/25] bpf: Maintain FIFO property for rqspinlock unlock Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-16 4:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 25/25] selftests/bpf: Add tests for rqspinlock Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-03-18 20:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 00/25] Resilient Queued Spin Lock Alexei Starovoitov
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=20250316040541.108729-12-memxor@gmail.com \
--to=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=brho@google.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=dohyunkim@google.com \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=joshdon@google.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=kkd@meta.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=llong@redhat.com \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will@kernel.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).