From: John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
Qais Yousef <qyousef@google.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
Zimuzo Ezeozue <zezeozue@google.com>,
Youssef Esmat <youssefesmat@google.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
kernel-team@android.com
Subject: [PATCH v5 02/19] locking/mutex: Removes wakeups from under mutex::wait_lock
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2023 06:08:36 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230819060915.3001568-3-jstultz@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230819060915.3001568-1-jstultz@google.com>
In preparation to nest mutex::wait_lock under rq::lock we need to remove
wakeups from under it.
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
Cc: Qais Yousef <qyousef@google.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>
Cc: Zimuzo Ezeozue <zezeozue@google.com>
Cc: Youssef Esmat <youssefesmat@google.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: kernel-team@android.com
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
[Heavily changed after 55f036ca7e74 ("locking: WW mutex cleanup") and
08295b3b5bee ("locking: Implement an algorithm choice for Wound-Wait
mutexes")]
Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
[jstultz: rebased to mainline, added extra wake_up_q & init
to avoid hangs, similar to Connor's rework of this patch]
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>
---
v5:
* Reverted back to an earlier version of this patch to undo
the change that kept the wake_q in the ctx structure, as
that broke the rule that the wake_q must always be on the
stack, as its not safe for concurrency.
---
kernel/locking/mutex.c | 15 ++++++++++++---
kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h | 29 ++++++++++++++++++-----------
2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
index d973fe6041bf..118b6412845c 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -570,6 +570,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, unsigned int state, unsigned int subclas
struct lockdep_map *nest_lock, unsigned long ip,
struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx, const bool use_ww_ctx)
{
+ DEFINE_WAKE_Q(wake_q);
struct mutex_waiter waiter;
struct ww_mutex *ww;
int ret;
@@ -620,7 +621,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, unsigned int state, unsigned int subclas
*/
if (__mutex_trylock(lock)) {
if (ww_ctx)
- __ww_mutex_check_waiters(lock, ww_ctx);
+ __ww_mutex_check_waiters(lock, ww_ctx, &wake_q);
goto skip_wait;
}
@@ -640,7 +641,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, unsigned int state, unsigned int subclas
* Add in stamp order, waking up waiters that must kill
* themselves.
*/
- ret = __ww_mutex_add_waiter(&waiter, lock, ww_ctx);
+ ret = __ww_mutex_add_waiter(&waiter, lock, ww_ctx, &wake_q);
if (ret)
goto err_early_kill;
}
@@ -676,6 +677,10 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, unsigned int state, unsigned int subclas
}
raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+ /* Make sure we do wakeups before calling schedule */
+ wake_up_q(&wake_q);
+ wake_q_init(&wake_q);
+
schedule_preempt_disabled();
first = __mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, &waiter);
@@ -709,7 +714,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, unsigned int state, unsigned int subclas
*/
if (!ww_ctx->is_wait_die &&
!__mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, &waiter))
- __ww_mutex_check_waiters(lock, ww_ctx);
+ __ww_mutex_check_waiters(lock, ww_ctx, &wake_q);
}
__mutex_remove_waiter(lock, &waiter);
@@ -725,6 +730,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, unsigned int state, unsigned int subclas
ww_mutex_lock_acquired(ww, ww_ctx);
raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+ wake_up_q(&wake_q);
preempt_enable();
return 0;
@@ -736,6 +742,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, unsigned int state, unsigned int subclas
raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
debug_mutex_free_waiter(&waiter);
mutex_release(&lock->dep_map, ip);
+ wake_up_q(&wake_q);
preempt_enable();
return ret;
}
@@ -946,9 +953,11 @@ static noinline void __sched __mutex_unlock_slowpath(struct mutex *lock, unsigne
if (owner & MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF)
__mutex_handoff(lock, next);
+ preempt_disable();
raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
wake_up_q(&wake_q);
+ preempt_enable();
}
#ifndef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
diff --git a/kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h b/kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h
index 3ad2cc4823e5..7189c6631d90 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h
+++ b/kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h
@@ -275,7 +275,7 @@ __ww_ctx_less(struct ww_acquire_ctx *a, struct ww_acquire_ctx *b)
*/
static bool
__ww_mutex_die(struct MUTEX *lock, struct MUTEX_WAITER *waiter,
- struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx)
+ struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx, struct wake_q_head *wake_q)
{
if (!ww_ctx->is_wait_die)
return false;
@@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ __ww_mutex_die(struct MUTEX *lock, struct MUTEX_WAITER *waiter,
#ifndef WW_RT
debug_mutex_wake_waiter(lock, waiter);
#endif
- wake_up_process(waiter->task);
+ wake_q_add(wake_q, waiter->task);
}
return true;
@@ -299,7 +299,8 @@ __ww_mutex_die(struct MUTEX *lock, struct MUTEX_WAITER *waiter,
*/
static bool __ww_mutex_wound(struct MUTEX *lock,
struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx,
- struct ww_acquire_ctx *hold_ctx)
+ struct ww_acquire_ctx *hold_ctx,
+ struct wake_q_head *wake_q)
{
struct task_struct *owner = __ww_mutex_owner(lock);
@@ -331,7 +332,7 @@ static bool __ww_mutex_wound(struct MUTEX *lock,
* wakeup pending to re-read the wounded state.
*/
if (owner != current)
- wake_up_process(owner);
+ wake_q_add(wake_q, owner);
return true;
}
@@ -352,7 +353,8 @@ static bool __ww_mutex_wound(struct MUTEX *lock,
* The current task must not be on the wait list.
*/
static void
-__ww_mutex_check_waiters(struct MUTEX *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx)
+__ww_mutex_check_waiters(struct MUTEX *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx,
+ struct wake_q_head *wake_q)
{
struct MUTEX_WAITER *cur;
@@ -364,8 +366,8 @@ __ww_mutex_check_waiters(struct MUTEX *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx)
if (!cur->ww_ctx)
continue;
- if (__ww_mutex_die(lock, cur, ww_ctx) ||
- __ww_mutex_wound(lock, cur->ww_ctx, ww_ctx))
+ if (__ww_mutex_die(lock, cur, ww_ctx, wake_q) ||
+ __ww_mutex_wound(lock, cur->ww_ctx, ww_ctx, wake_q))
break;
}
}
@@ -377,6 +379,8 @@ __ww_mutex_check_waiters(struct MUTEX *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx)
static __always_inline void
ww_mutex_set_context_fastpath(struct ww_mutex *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
{
+ DEFINE_WAKE_Q(wake_q);
+
ww_mutex_lock_acquired(lock, ctx);
/*
@@ -405,8 +409,10 @@ ww_mutex_set_context_fastpath(struct ww_mutex *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
* die or wound us.
*/
lock_wait_lock(&lock->base);
- __ww_mutex_check_waiters(&lock->base, ctx);
+ __ww_mutex_check_waiters(&lock->base, ctx, &wake_q);
unlock_wait_lock(&lock->base);
+
+ wake_up_q(&wake_q);
}
static __always_inline int
@@ -488,7 +494,8 @@ __ww_mutex_check_kill(struct MUTEX *lock, struct MUTEX_WAITER *waiter,
static inline int
__ww_mutex_add_waiter(struct MUTEX_WAITER *waiter,
struct MUTEX *lock,
- struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx)
+ struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx,
+ struct wake_q_head *wake_q)
{
struct MUTEX_WAITER *cur, *pos = NULL;
bool is_wait_die;
@@ -532,7 +539,7 @@ __ww_mutex_add_waiter(struct MUTEX_WAITER *waiter,
pos = cur;
/* Wait-Die: ensure younger waiters die. */
- __ww_mutex_die(lock, cur, ww_ctx);
+ __ww_mutex_die(lock, cur, ww_ctx, wake_q);
}
__ww_waiter_add(lock, waiter, pos);
@@ -550,7 +557,7 @@ __ww_mutex_add_waiter(struct MUTEX_WAITER *waiter,
* such that either we or the fastpath will wound @ww->ctx.
*/
smp_mb();
- __ww_mutex_wound(lock, ww_ctx, ww->ctx);
+ __ww_mutex_wound(lock, ww_ctx, ww->ctx, wake_q);
}
return 0;
--
2.42.0.rc1.204.g551eb34607-goog
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-19 6:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-19 6:08 [PATCH v5 00/19] Proxy Execution: A generalized form of Priority Inheritance v5 John Stultz
2023-08-19 6:08 ` [PATCH v5 01/19] sched: Unify runtime accounting across classes John Stultz
2023-08-19 6:08 ` John Stultz [this message]
2023-08-22 19:11 ` [PATCH v5 02/19] locking/mutex: Removes wakeups from under mutex::wait_lock Waiman Long
2023-08-22 19:24 ` John Stultz
2023-08-19 6:08 ` [PATCH v5 03/19] locking/mutex: make mutex::wait_lock irq safe John Stultz
2023-08-19 6:08 ` [PATCH v5 04/19] locking/mutex: Expose __mutex_owner() John Stultz
2023-08-19 6:08 ` [PATCH v5 05/19] locking/mutex: Rework task_struct::blocked_on John Stultz
2023-08-19 6:08 ` [PATCH v5 06/19] locking/mutex: Add task_struct::blocked_lock to serialize changes to the blocked_on state John Stultz
2023-08-19 6:08 ` [PATCH v5 07/19] locking/mutex: Add p->blocked_on wrappers for correctness checks John Stultz
2023-08-19 6:08 ` [PATCH v5 08/19] locking/mutex: Split blocked_on logic into two states (blocked_on and blocked_on_waking) John Stultz
2023-08-19 6:08 ` [PATCH v5 09/19] locking/mutex: Switch to mutex handoffs for CONFIG_PROXY_EXEC John Stultz
2023-08-19 6:08 ` [PATCH v5 10/19] sched: Split scheduler execution context John Stultz
2023-08-19 6:08 ` [PATCH v5 11/19] sched: Fix runtime accounting w/ split exec & sched contexts John Stultz
2023-08-19 6:08 ` [PATCH v5 12/19] sched: Unnest ttwu_runnable in prep for proxy-execution John Stultz
2023-08-19 6:08 ` [PATCH v5 13/19] sched: Split out __sched() deactivate task logic into a helper John Stultz
2023-08-23 21:12 ` kernel test robot
2023-08-23 21:25 ` John Stultz
2023-08-24 0:00 ` kernel test robot
2023-08-24 0:34 ` kernel test robot
2023-08-19 6:08 ` [PATCH v5 14/19] sched: Add a very simple proxy() function John Stultz
2023-08-19 6:08 ` [PATCH v5 15/19] sched: Add proxy deactivate helper John Stultz
2023-08-24 11:34 ` kernel test robot
2023-08-19 6:08 ` [PATCH v5 16/19] sched: Fix proxy/current (push,pull)ability John Stultz
2023-08-22 15:20 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2023-08-22 16:19 ` John Stultz
2023-08-19 6:08 ` [PATCH v5 17/19] sched: Start blocked_on chain processing in proxy() John Stultz
2023-08-19 6:08 ` [PATCH v5 18/19] sched: Handle blocked-waiter migration (and return migration) John Stultz
2023-08-19 6:08 ` [PATCH v5 19/19] sched: Add blocked_donor link to task for smarter mutex handoffs John Stultz
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=20230819060915.3001568-3-jstultz@google.com \
--to=jstultz@google.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=joelaf@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=qyousef@google.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=youssefesmat@google.com \
--cc=zezeozue@google.com \
/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