Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc: spinlock: Fix spin_unlock_wait()

[Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3473 bytes --]

On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 10:23:28PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-06-08 at 15:59 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 11:49:20PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >
> > > > Ok; what tree does this go in? I have this dependent series which I'd
> > > > like to get sorted and merged somewhere.
> > > 
> > > Ah sorry, I didn't realise. I was going to put it in my next (which doesn't
> > > exist yet but hopefully will early next week).
> > > 
> > > I'll make a topic branch with just that commit based on rc2 or rc3?
> > 
> > Works for me; thanks!
>  
> Unfortunately the patch isn't 100%.
> 
> It's causing some of my machines to lock up hard, which isn't surprising when
> you look at the generated code for the non-atomic spin loop:
> 
>   c00000000009af48:	7c 21 0b 78 	mr      r1,r1					# HMT_LOW
>   c00000000009af4c:	40 9e ff fc 	bne     cr7,c00000000009af48 <.do_exit+0x6d8>
> 

There is even no code checking for SHARED_PROCESSOR here, so I assume
your config is !PPC_SPLPAR.

> Which is a spin loop waiting for a result in cr7, but with no comparison.
> 
> The problem seems to be that we did:
> 
> @@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ static inline void arch_spin_unlock_wait(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
>  	if (arch_spin_value_unlocked(lock_val))
>  		goto out;
>  
> -	while (lock->slock) {
> +	while (!arch_spin_value_unlocked(*lock)) {
>  		HMT_low();
>  		if (SHARED_PROCESSOR)
>  			__spin_yield(lock);
> 

And as I also did an consolidation in this patch, we now share the same
piece of arch_spin_unlock_wait(), so if !PPC_SPLPAR, the previous loop
became:

	while (!arch_spin_value_unlocked(*lock)) {
 		HMT_low();
	}

and given HMT_low() is not a compiler barrier. So the compiler may
optimize out the loop..

> Which seems to be hiding the fact that lock->slock is volatile from the
> compiler, even though arch_spin_value_unlocked() is inline. Not sure if that's
> our bug or gcc's.
> 

I think arch_spin_value_unlocked() is not volatile because
arch_spin_value_unlocked() takes the value of the lock rather than the
address of the lock as its parameter, which makes it a pure function.

To fix this we can add READ_ONCE() for the read of lock value like the
following:

	while(!arch_spin_value_unlock(READ_ONCE(*lock))) {
		HMT_low();
		...

Or you prefer to simply using lock->slock which is a volatile variable
already?

Or maybe we can refactor the code a little like this:

static inline void arch_spin_unlock_wait(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
{
       arch_spinlock_t lock_val;

       smp_mb();

       /*
        * Atomically load and store back the lock value (unchanged).  This
        * ensures that our observation of the lock value is ordered with
        * respect to other lock operations.
        */
       __asm__ __volatile__(
"1:    " PPC_LWARX(%0, 0, %2, 0) "\n"
"      stwcx. %0, 0, %2\n"
"      bne- 1b\n"
       : "=&r" (lock_val), "+m" (*lock)
       : "r" (lock)
       : "cr0", "xer");

       while (!arch_spin_value_unlocked(lock_val)) {
               HMT_low();
               if (SHARED_PROCESSOR)
                       __spin_yield(lock);

               lock_val = READ_ONCE(*lock);
       }
       HMT_medium();

       smp_mb();
}

> Will sleep on it.
> 

Bed time for me too, I will run more tests on the three proposals above
tomorrow and see how things are going.

Regards,
Boqun

> cheers
> 

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]