From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
longman@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/3] locking/qspinlock: Optimize for x86
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 14:22:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181002132208.GF16422@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181002123152.GA10055@andrea>
On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 02:31:52PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > consider this scenario with your patch:
> >
> > 1. CPU0 sees a locked val, and is about to do your xchg_relaxed() to set
> > pending.
> >
> > 2. CPU1 comes in and sets pending, spins on locked
> >
> > 3. CPU2 sees a pending and locked val, and is about to enter the head of
> > the waitqueue (i.e. it's right before xchg_tail()).
> >
> > 4. The locked holder unlock()s, CPU1 takes the lock() and then unlock()s
> > it, so pending and locked are now 0.
> >
> > 5. CPU0 sets pending and reads back zeroes for the other fields
> >
> > 6. CPU0 clears pending and sets locked -- it now has the lock
> >
> > 7. CPU2 updates tail, sees it's at the head of the waitqueue and spins
> > for locked and pending to go clear. However, it reads a stale value
> > from step (4) and attempts the atomic_try_cmpxchg() to take the lock.
> >
> > 8. CPU2 will fail the cmpxchg(), but then go ahead and set locked. At this
> > point we're hosed, because both CPU2 and CPU0 have the lock.
>
> Thanks for pointing this out. I am wondering: can't we have a similar
> scenario with the current code (i.e., w/o these patches): what prevents
> the scenario reported below, following Peter's diagram, from happening?
The xchg_tail() in step (7) reads from the fetch_or_acquire() in step (5),
so I don't think we can see a stale value in the subsequent (overlapping)
acquire load.
Will
> CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 CPU3
>
> 0) lock
> trylock -> (0,0,1)
> 1)lock
> trylock /* fail */
>
> 2) lock
> trylock /* fail */
> fetch_or_acquire -> (0,1,1)
> wait-locked
>
> 3) lock
> trylock /* fail */
> goto queue
>
> 4) unlock -> (0,1,0)
> clr_pnd_set_lck -> (0,0,1)
> unlock -> (0,0,0)
>
> 5) fetch_or_acquire -> (0,1,0)
> 6) clr_pnd_set_lck -> (0,0,1)
> 7) xchg_tail -> (n,0,1)
> load_acquire <- (n,0,0) (from-4)
> 8) cmpxchg /* fail */
> set_locked()
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-02 13:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-26 11:01 [RFC][PATCH 0/3] locking/qspinlock: Improve determinism for x86 Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-26 11:01 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/3] locking/qspinlock: Re-order code Peter Zijlstra
2018-10-01 17:17 ` Will Deacon
2018-09-26 11:01 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/3] locking/qspinlock: Rework some comments Peter Zijlstra
2018-10-01 17:17 ` Will Deacon
2018-10-01 19:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-10-02 13:20 ` Will Deacon
2018-10-02 13:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-26 11:01 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/3] locking/qspinlock: Optimize for x86 Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-26 16:30 ` Waiman Long
2018-09-26 17:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-27 7:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-26 20:52 ` Andrea Parri
2018-09-27 7:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-27 7:47 ` Andrea Parri
2018-09-27 7:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-27 8:13 ` Andrea Parri
2018-09-27 8:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-27 12:16 ` David Laight
2018-10-01 17:17 ` Will Deacon
2018-10-01 20:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-10-02 13:19 ` Will Deacon
2018-10-02 14:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-10-02 12:31 ` Andrea Parri
2018-10-02 13:22 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2018-10-02 13:44 ` Andrea Parri
2018-09-26 15:01 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/3] locking/qspinlock: Improve determinism " Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-09-26 15:08 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-09-26 15:38 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-09-26 16:20 ` Waiman Long
2018-09-26 17:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-26 23:21 ` Waiman Long
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=20181002132208.GF16422@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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).