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 05/10] locking/qspinlock: Remove unbounded cmpxchg() loop from locking slowpath
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 23:10:44 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181218221049.6816-6-bigeasy@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181218221049.6816-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de>

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

commit 59fb586b4a07b4e1a0ee577140ab4842ba451acd upstream.

The qspinlock locking slowpath utilises a "pending" bit as a simple form
of an embedded test-and-set lock that can avoid the overhead of explicit
queuing in cases where the lock is held but uncontended. This bit is
managed using a cmpxchg() loop which tries to transition the uncontended
lock word from (0,0,0) -> (0,0,1) or (0,0,1) -> (0,1,1).

Unfortunately, the cmpxchg() loop is unbounded and lockers can be starved
indefinitely if the lock word is seen to oscillate between unlocked
(0,0,0) and locked (0,0,1). This could happen if concurrent lockers are
able to take the lock in the cmpxchg() loop without queuing and pass it
around amongst themselves.

This patch fixes the problem by unconditionally setting _Q_PENDING_VAL
using atomic_fetch_or, and then inspecting the old value to see whether
we need to spin on the current lock owner, or whether we now effectively
hold the lock. The tricky scenario is when concurrent lockers end up
queuing on the lock and the lock becomes available, causing us to see
a lockword of (n,0,0). With pending now set, simply queuing could lead
to deadlock as the head of the queue may not have observed the pending
flag being cleared. Conversely, if the head of the queue did observe
pending being cleared, then it could transition the lock from (n,0,0) ->
(0,0,1) meaning that any attempt to "undo" our setting of the pending
bit could race with a concurrent locker trying to set it.

We handle this race by preserving the pending bit when taking the lock
after reaching the head of the queue and leaving the tail entry intact
if we saw pending set, because we know that the tail is going to be
updated shortly.

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/1524738868-31318-6-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          | 102 ++++++++++++++++------------
 kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h |   5 --
 2 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
index cc98050e8bec0..e7ab99a1f4387 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
@@ -126,6 +126,17 @@ static inline __pure struct mcs_spinlock *decode_tail(u32 tail)
 #define _Q_LOCKED_PENDING_MASK (_Q_LOCKED_MASK | _Q_PENDING_MASK)
 
 #if _Q_PENDING_BITS == 8
+/**
+ * clear_pending - clear the pending bit.
+ * @lock: Pointer to queued spinlock structure
+ *
+ * *,1,* -> *,0,*
+ */
+static __always_inline void clear_pending(struct qspinlock *lock)
+{
+	WRITE_ONCE(lock->pending, 0);
+}
+
 /**
  * clear_pending_set_locked - take ownership and clear the pending bit.
  * @lock: Pointer to queued spinlock structure
@@ -161,6 +172,17 @@ static __always_inline u32 xchg_tail(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 tail)
 
 #else /* _Q_PENDING_BITS == 8 */
 
+/**
+ * clear_pending - clear the pending bit.
+ * @lock: Pointer to queued spinlock structure
+ *
+ * *,1,* -> *,0,*
+ */
+static __always_inline void clear_pending(struct qspinlock *lock)
+{
+	atomic_andnot(_Q_PENDING_VAL, &lock->val);
+}
+
 /**
  * clear_pending_set_locked - take ownership and clear the pending bit.
  * @lock: Pointer to queued spinlock structure
@@ -382,7 +404,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(queued_spin_unlock_wait);
 void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
 {
 	struct mcs_spinlock *prev, *next, *node;
-	u32 new, old, tail;
+	u32 old, tail;
 	int idx;
 
 	BUILD_BUG_ON(CONFIG_NR_CPUS >= (1U << _Q_TAIL_CPU_BITS));
@@ -405,59 +427,51 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
 					       (VAL != _Q_PENDING_VAL) || !cnt--);
 	}
 
+	/*
+	 * If we observe any contention; queue.
+	 */
+	if (val & ~_Q_LOCKED_MASK)
+		goto queue;
+
 	/*
 	 * trylock || pending
 	 *
 	 * 0,0,0 -> 0,0,1 ; trylock
 	 * 0,0,1 -> 0,1,1 ; pending
 	 */
-	for (;;) {
+	val = atomic_fetch_or_acquire(_Q_PENDING_VAL, &lock->val);
+	if (!(val & ~_Q_LOCKED_MASK)) {
 		/*
-		 * If we observe any contention; queue.
+		 * We're pending, wait for the owner to go away.
+		 *
+		 * *,1,1 -> *,1,0
+		 *
+		 * this wait loop must be a load-acquire such that we match the
+		 * store-release that clears the locked bit and create lock
+		 * sequentiality; this is because not all
+		 * clear_pending_set_locked() implementations imply full
+		 * barriers.
 		 */
-		if (val & ~_Q_LOCKED_MASK)
-			goto queue;
-
-		new = _Q_LOCKED_VAL;
-		if (val == new)
-			new |= _Q_PENDING_VAL;
+		if (val & _Q_LOCKED_MASK) {
+			smp_cond_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter,
+					      !(VAL & _Q_LOCKED_MASK));
+		}
 
 		/*
-		 * Acquire semantic is required here as the function may
-		 * return immediately if the lock was free.
+		 * take ownership and clear the pending bit.
+		 *
+		 * *,1,0 -> *,0,1
 		 */
-		old = atomic_cmpxchg_acquire(&lock->val, val, new);
-		if (old == val)
-			break;
-
-		val = old;
+		clear_pending_set_locked(lock);
+		return;
 	}
 
 	/*
-	 * we won the trylock
+	 * If pending was clear but there are waiters in the queue, then
+	 * we need to undo our setting of pending before we queue ourselves.
 	 */
-	if (new == _Q_LOCKED_VAL)
-		return;
-
-	/*
-	 * we're pending, wait for the owner to go away.
-	 *
-	 * *,1,1 -> *,1,0
-	 *
-	 * this wait loop must be a load-acquire such that we match the
-	 * store-release that clears the locked bit and create lock
-	 * sequentiality; this is because not all clear_pending_set_locked()
-	 * implementations imply full barriers.
-	 */
-	smp_cond_load_acquire(&lock->val.counter, !(VAL & _Q_LOCKED_MASK));
-
-	/*
-	 * take ownership and clear the pending bit.
-	 *
-	 * *,1,0 -> *,0,1
-	 */
-	clear_pending_set_locked(lock);
-	return;
+	if (!(val & _Q_PENDING_MASK))
+		clear_pending(lock);
 
 	/*
 	 * End of pending bit optimistic spinning and beginning of MCS
@@ -561,15 +575,15 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
 	 * claim the lock:
 	 *
 	 * n,0,0 -> 0,0,1 : lock, uncontended
-	 * *,0,0 -> *,0,1 : lock, contended
+	 * *,*,0 -> *,*,1 : lock, contended
 	 *
-	 * If the queue head is the only one in the queue (lock value == tail),
-	 * clear the tail code and grab the lock. Otherwise, we only need
-	 * to grab the lock.
+	 * If the queue head is the only one in the queue (lock value == tail)
+	 * and nobody is pending, clear the tail code and grab the lock.
+	 * Otherwise, we only need to grab the lock.
 	 */
 	for (;;) {
 		/* In the PV case we might already have _Q_LOCKED_VAL set */
-		if ((val & _Q_TAIL_MASK) != tail) {
+		if ((val & _Q_TAIL_MASK) != tail || (val & _Q_PENDING_MASK)) {
 			set_locked(lock);
 			break;
 		}
diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h b/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
index 3e33336911ffe..9c07c72fb10e9 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
+++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
@@ -88,11 +88,6 @@ static __always_inline void set_pending(struct qspinlock *lock)
 	WRITE_ONCE(lock->pending, 1);
 }
 
-static __always_inline void clear_pending(struct qspinlock *lock)
-{
-	WRITE_ONCE(lock->pending, 0);
-}
-
 /*
  * The pending bit check in pv_queued_spin_steal_lock() isn't a memory
  * barrier. Therefore, an atomic cmpxchg() is used to acquire the lock
-- 
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 ` [PATCH STABLE v4.9 03/10] locking/qspinlock: Bound spinning on pending->locked transition in slowpath Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
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 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [this message]
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 05/10] locking/qspinlock: Remove unbounded cmpxchg() loop from locking 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=20181218221049.6816-6-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