From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S965435AbcBBVTU (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 2 Feb 2016 16:19:20 -0500
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:41296 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S964891AbcBBVTR (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 2 Feb 2016 16:19:17 -0500
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 13:19:06 -0800
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>, Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>,
        Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/mutex: Avoid spinner vs waiter starvation
Message-ID: <20160202211906.GD16147@linux-uzut.site>
References: <20160122085422.GO6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <1453458019.9727.8.camel@j-VirtualBox>
 <20160122105312.GQ6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160122105652.GE6375@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160122110653.GF6375@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <56A235DC.2060900@hpe.com>
 <56A48566.9040206@huawei.com>
 <20160129095347.GA6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <56AC0F74.2040808@huawei.com>
 <20160201100824.GO6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160201100824.GO6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 01 Feb 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

>Subject: locking/mutex: Avoid spinner vs waiter starvation
>From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 12:06:53 +0100
>
>Ding Tianhong reported that under his load the optimistic spinners
>would totally starve a task that ended up on the wait list.
>
>Fix this by ensuring the top waiter also partakes in the optimistic
>spin queue.
>
>There are a few subtle differences between the assumed state of
>regular optimistic spinners and those already on the wait list, which
>result in the @acquired complication of the acquire path.
>
>Most notable are:
>
> - waiters are on the wait list and need to be taken off
> - mutex_optimistic_spin() sets the lock->count to 0 on acquire
>   even though there might be more tasks on the wait list.

Right, the main impact I see with these complications are that the
window of when a waiter takes the lock via spinning and then acquires
the wait_lock to remove itself from the list, will allow an unlock
thread to set the lock as available in the fastpath which could in
turn allow a third thread the steal the lock. With high contention,
this window will be come obviously larger as we contend for the
wait_lock.

CPU-0	      	 	       	    CPU-1			CPU-3
__mutex_lock_common		    
   mutex_optimistic_spin
   (->count now 0)
			__mutex_fastpath_unlock
			(->count now 1)				 __mutex_fastpath_lock
				     				 (stolen)
														
spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);

But we've always been bad when it comes to counter and waiters.

Thanks,
Davidlohr