Re: [RFC v4] wait: prevent waiter starvation in __wait_on_bit_lock

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

On 01/23, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 09:25:50PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 01/21, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > >
> > 	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;
> > 	}
>
> Hehe, there is only n solutions to this problem.  I had thought about
> that too, even written it down.  But I was not sure if taking the
> spinlock, toggling irqs and (re)storing the flags is better than an
> untaken branch. ;)

Yes. Fortunately, this is "unlikely" path.

> > 		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;
> > 			}
> > 		}
>
> If you don't mind putting a second finish_wait() in there (you still
> need the one after the loop, right?), we can fix up my version to not
> check ret twice but do finish_wait() as you describe and then the
> test_bit() && wake up:
>
> 	do {
> 		if (test_bit())
> 			if ((ret = action())) {
> 				finish_wait()
> 				smp_rmb()
> 				if (!test_bit())
> 					__wake_up_bit()

Yes sure. Except this wakeup can be false.

> > 	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() ?
>
> Yeah, we do IIUC.  Then having finish_wait() extended is probably a
> good idea.

Yes.

It is no that I think this new helper is really needed for this
particular case, personally I agree with the patch you sent.

But if we have other places with the similar problem, then perhaps
it is better to introduce the special finish_wait_exclusive() or
whatever.

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>