Linux kernel -stable discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: stable@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com>,
	bigeasy@linutronix.de, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	boqun.feng@gmail.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH STABLE v4.9 03/10] locking/qspinlock: Bound spinning on pending->locked transition in slowpath
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 23:10:42 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181218221049.6816-4-bigeasy@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181218221049.6816-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de>

From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

commit 6512276d97b160d90b53285bd06f7f201459a7e3 upstream.

If a locker taking the qspinlock slowpath reads a lock value indicating
that only the pending bit is set, then it will spin whilst the
concurrent pending->locked transition takes effect.

Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that such a transition will ever be
observed since concurrent lockers could continuously set pending and
hand over the lock amongst themselves, leading to starvation. Whilst
this would probably resolve in practice, it means that it is not
possible to prove liveness properties about the lock and means that lock
acquisition time is unbounded.

Rather than removing the pending->locked spinning from the slowpath
altogether (which has been shown to heavily penalise a 2-threaded
locking stress test on x86), this patch replaces the explicit spinning
with a call to atomic_cond_read_relaxed and allows the architecture to
provide a bound on the number of spins. For architectures that can
respond to changes in cacheline state in their smp_cond_load implementation,
it should be sufficient to use the default bound of 1.

Suggested-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: boqun.feng@gmail.com
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1524738868-31318-4-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
---
 kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
index 6fce84401dba1..a8da1fc5222eb 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
@@ -75,6 +75,18 @@
 #define MAX_NODES	4
 #endif
 
+/*
+ * The pending bit spinning loop count.
+ * This heuristic is used to limit the number of lockword accesses
+ * made by atomic_cond_read_relaxed when waiting for the lock to
+ * transition out of the "== _Q_PENDING_VAL" state. We don't spin
+ * indefinitely because there's no guarantee that we'll make forward
+ * progress.
+ */
+#ifndef _Q_PENDING_LOOPS
+#define _Q_PENDING_LOOPS	1
+#endif
+
 /*
  * Per-CPU queue node structures; we can never have more than 4 nested
  * contexts: task, softirq, hardirq, nmi.
@@ -422,13 +434,15 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
 		return;
 
 	/*
-	 * wait for in-progress pending->locked hand-overs
+	 * Wait for in-progress pending->locked hand-overs with a bounded
+	 * number of spins so that we guarantee forward progress.
 	 *
 	 * 0,1,0 -> 0,0,1
 	 */
 	if (val == _Q_PENDING_VAL) {
-		while ((val = atomic_read(&lock->val)) == _Q_PENDING_VAL)
-			cpu_relax();
+		int cnt = _Q_PENDING_LOOPS;
+		val = smp_cond_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter,
+					       (VAL != _Q_PENDING_VAL) || !cnt--);
 	}
 
 	/*
-- 
2.20.1

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-12-18 22:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-12-18 22:10 [PATCH STABLE v4.9 00/10] Backport for "cache line starvation on x86 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-12-18 22:10 ` [PATCH STABLE v4.9 01/10] locking: Remove smp_read_barrier_depends() from queued_spin_lock_slowpath() Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-12-18 22:10 ` [PATCH STABLE v4.9 02/10] locking/qspinlock: Ensure node is initialised before updating prev->next Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-12-18 22:10 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [this message]
2018-12-18 22:10 ` [PATCH STABLE v4.9 04/10] locking/qspinlock: Merge 'struct __qspinlock' into 'struct qspinlock' Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-12-18 22:10 ` [PATCH STABLE v4.9 05/10] locking/qspinlock: Remove unbounded cmpxchg() loop from locking slowpath Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-12-18 22:10 ` [PATCH STABLE v4.9 06/10] locking/qspinlock: Remove duplicate clear_pending() function from PV code Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-12-18 22:10 ` [PATCH STABLE v4.9 07/10] locking/qspinlock: Kill cmpxchg() loop when claiming lock from head of queue Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-12-18 22:10 ` [PATCH STABLE v4.9 08/10] locking/qspinlock: Re-order code Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-12-18 22:10 ` [PATCH STABLE v4.9 09/10] locking/qspinlock/x86: Increase _Q_PENDING_LOOPS upper bound Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-12-18 22:10 ` [PATCH STABLE v4.9 10/10] locking/qspinlock, x86: Provide liveness guarantee Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-12-18 22:35 ` [PATCH STABLE v4.9 00/10] Backport for "cache line starvation on x86 Sasha Levin
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-12-13 14:09 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-12-13 14:09 ` [PATCH STABLE v4.9 03/10] locking/qspinlock: Bound spinning on pending->locked transition in slowpath Sebastian Andrzej Siewior

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=20181218221049.6816-4-bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --to=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=daniel.wagner@siemens.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.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