linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Darren Hart <darren@dvhart.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	fredrik.markstrom@windriver.com,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Subject: [PATCH v2] ipc/mqueue: remove STATE_PENDING
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 16:37:26 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150410143726.GD3057@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55241851.7060704@colorfullife.com>

This patch moves the wakeup_process() invocation so it is not done under
the info->lock. With this change, the waiter is woken up once it is
"ready" which means its state is STATE_READY and it does not need to loop
on SMP if it is still in STATE_PENDING.
In the timeout case we still need to grab the info->lock to verify the state.

This change should also avoid the introduction of preempt_disable() in
-RT which avoids a busy-loop which pools for the STATE_PENDING -> STATE_READY
change if the waiter has a higher priority compared to the waker.

Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
---
v1…v2: update / correct the comment of how the algorithm works now.

* Manfred Spraul | 2015-04-07 19:48:01 [+0200]:
>No. With your change, ipc/sem.c and ipc/msg.c use different algorithms.
>Please update the comment and describe the new approach:
>
>Current approach:
>- set pointer to message
>- STATE_PENDING
>- wake_up_process()
>- STATE_READY
>    (now the receiver can continue)
>
>New approach:
>- set pointer to message
>- get_task_struct
>- STATE_READY
>    (now the receiver can continue, e.g. woken up due to an unrelated
>SIGKILL)
>- wake_up_process()
>- put_task_struct()

Updated. Does it meet your expectation?

>
>>+		if (r_sender) {
>>+			wake_up_process(r_sender);
>>+			put_task_struct(r_sender);
>>+		}
>>  		ret = 0;
>Could you double-check that it is safe to call wake_up_process on a
>killed and reaped thread, only with a get_task_struct reference?
tglx answered that part.

>And: please test it, too. (patch the kernel so that you can trigger
>this case).

Why patch? Isn't this triggered if you have a reader waiting and you
send a message?

 ipc/mqueue.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/ipc/mqueue.c b/ipc/mqueue.c
index 7635a1cf99f3..bfdc2219a470 100644
--- a/ipc/mqueue.c
+++ b/ipc/mqueue.c
@@ -47,7 +47,6 @@
 #define RECV		1
 
 #define STATE_NONE	0
-#define STATE_PENDING	1
 #define STATE_READY	2
 
 struct posix_msg_tree_node {
@@ -577,9 +576,6 @@ static int wq_sleep(struct mqueue_inode_info *info, int sr,
 		time = schedule_hrtimeout_range_clock(timeout, 0,
 			HRTIMER_MODE_ABS, CLOCK_REALTIME);
 
-		while (ewp->state == STATE_PENDING)
-			cpu_relax();
-
 		if (ewp->state == STATE_READY) {
 			retval = 0;
 			goto out;
@@ -909,9 +905,14 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE1(mq_unlink, const char __user *, u_name)
  * bypasses the message array and directly hands the message over to the
  * receiver.
  * The receiver accepts the message and returns without grabbing the queue
- * spinlock. Therefore an intermediate STATE_PENDING state and memory barriers
- * are necessary. The same algorithm is used for sysv semaphores, see
- * ipc/sem.c for more details.
+ * spinlock. The used algorithm is different from sysv semaphores (ipc/sem.c):
+ * - set pointer to message
+ * - hold a reference of the task to be woken up
+ * - update its state (to STATE_READY). Now the receiver can continue.
+ * - wake up the process after the lock is dropped. Should the process wake up
+ *   before this wakeup (due to a timeout or a signal) it will either see
+ *   STATE_READY and continue or acquire the lock to check the sate again.
+ * - put the reference to task to be woken up.
  *
  * The same algorithm is used for senders.
  */
@@ -919,36 +920,41 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE1(mq_unlink, const char __user *, u_name)
 /* pipelined_send() - send a message directly to the task waiting in
  * sys_mq_timedreceive() (without inserting message into a queue).
  */
-static inline void pipelined_send(struct mqueue_inode_info *info,
+static struct task_struct *pipelined_send(struct mqueue_inode_info *info,
 				  struct msg_msg *message,
 				  struct ext_wait_queue *receiver)
 {
+	struct task_struct *r_task;
+
 	receiver->msg = message;
 	list_del(&receiver->list);
-	receiver->state = STATE_PENDING;
-	wake_up_process(receiver->task);
+	r_task = receiver->task;
+	get_task_struct(r_task);
 	smp_wmb();
 	receiver->state = STATE_READY;
+	return r_task;
 }
 
 /* pipelined_receive() - if there is task waiting in sys_mq_timedsend()
  * gets its message and put to the queue (we have one free place for sure). */
-static inline void pipelined_receive(struct mqueue_inode_info *info)
+static struct task_struct *pipelined_receive(struct mqueue_inode_info *info)
 {
+	struct task_struct *r_sender;
 	struct ext_wait_queue *sender = wq_get_first_waiter(info, SEND);
 
 	if (!sender) {
 		/* for poll */
 		wake_up_interruptible(&info->wait_q);
-		return;
+		return NULL;
 	}
 	if (msg_insert(sender->msg, info))
-		return;
+		return NULL;
 	list_del(&sender->list);
-	sender->state = STATE_PENDING;
-	wake_up_process(sender->task);
+	r_sender = sender->task;
+	get_task_struct(r_sender);
 	smp_wmb();
 	sender->state = STATE_READY;
+	return r_sender;
 }
 
 SYSCALL_DEFINE5(mq_timedsend, mqd_t, mqdes, const char __user *, u_msg_ptr,
@@ -961,6 +967,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(mq_timedsend, mqd_t, mqdes, const char __user *, u_msg_ptr,
 	struct ext_wait_queue *receiver;
 	struct msg_msg *msg_ptr;
 	struct mqueue_inode_info *info;
+	struct task_struct *r_task = NULL;
 	ktime_t expires, *timeout = NULL;
 	struct timespec ts;
 	struct posix_msg_tree_node *new_leaf = NULL;
@@ -1049,7 +1056,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(mq_timedsend, mqd_t, mqdes, const char __user *, u_msg_ptr,
 	} else {
 		receiver = wq_get_first_waiter(info, RECV);
 		if (receiver) {
-			pipelined_send(info, msg_ptr, receiver);
+			r_task = pipelined_send(info, msg_ptr, receiver);
 		} else {
 			/* adds message to the queue */
 			ret = msg_insert(msg_ptr, info);
@@ -1062,6 +1069,10 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(mq_timedsend, mqd_t, mqdes, const char __user *, u_msg_ptr,
 	}
 out_unlock:
 	spin_unlock(&info->lock);
+	if (r_task) {
+		wake_up_process(r_task);
+		put_task_struct(r_task);
+	}
 out_free:
 	if (ret)
 		free_msg(msg_ptr);
@@ -1149,14 +1160,20 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(mq_timedreceive, mqd_t, mqdes, char __user *, u_msg_ptr,
 			msg_ptr = wait.msg;
 		}
 	} else {
+		struct task_struct *r_sender;
+
 		msg_ptr = msg_get(info);
 
 		inode->i_atime = inode->i_mtime = inode->i_ctime =
 				CURRENT_TIME;
 
 		/* There is now free space in queue. */
-		pipelined_receive(info);
+		r_sender = pipelined_receive(info);
 		spin_unlock(&info->lock);
+		if (r_sender) {
+			wake_up_process(r_sender);
+			put_task_struct(r_sender);
+		}
 		ret = 0;
 	}
 	if (ret == 0) {
-- 
2.1.4


  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-04-10 14:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-04-07 15:03 improve futex on -RT by avoiding the double wake-up Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-04-07 15:03 ` [PATCH 1/3] futex: avoid double wake up in PI futex wait / wake on -RT Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-04-07 18:41   ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-04-10 14:42     ` [PATCH 1/3 v2] " Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-04-07 15:03 ` [PATCH 2/3] futex: avoid double wake up in futex_wake() " Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-04-07 19:47   ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-04-10 16:11     ` [PATCH 2/3 v2] " Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-04-13  3:02       ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-04-16  5:09         ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-04-16  9:19           ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-04-16 10:16             ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-04-16 10:49               ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-04-16 14:42               ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-04-16 15:54                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-04-16 16:22                   ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-04-07 15:03 ` [PATCH 3/3] ipc/mqueue: remove STATE_PENDING Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-04-07 17:48   ` Manfred Spraul
2015-04-07 18:28     ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-04-10 14:37     ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [this message]
2015-04-23 22:18       ` [PATCH v2] " Thomas Gleixner
2015-04-28  3:24         ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-04-28 12:37           ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-04-28 16:36             ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-04-28 16:43               ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-04-28 16:59                 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-04-29 19:44                   ` Manfred Spraul
2015-04-30 18:46                     ` Davidlohr Bueso

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=20150410143726.GD3057@linutronix.de \
    --to=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=darren@dvhart.com \
    --cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=fredrik.markstrom@windriver.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=manfred@colorfullife.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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).