Re: [PATCH 2/2] locking/qspinlock: Limit # of spins in _Q_PENDING_VAL wait loop

From: Waiman Long
Date: Wed Apr 11 2018 - 14:06:19 EST


On 04/11/2018 11:22 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> Hi Waiman,
>
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 02:08:52PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> @@ -311,13 +320,19 @@ 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
>> + * limited number of spins.
>> *
>> * 0,1,0 -> 0,0,1
>> */
>> if (val == _Q_PENDING_VAL) {
>> - while ((val = atomic_read(&lock->val)) == _Q_PENDING_VAL)
>> + int cnt = _Q_PENDING_LOOP;
>> +
>> + while ((val = atomic_read(&lock->val)) == _Q_PENDING_VAL) {
>> + if (!--cnt)
>> + goto queue;
>> cpu_relax();
>> + }
>> }
> In my model, the pathological case is not this loop but the following
> one (trylock || pending):
>
> P0: P1:
> queued_spin_lock() fails queued_spin_lock() succeeds
> queued_spin_lock_slowpath()
> val == _Q_LOCKED_VAL
> new = _Q_LOCKED_VAL |
> _Q_PENDING_VAL
> queued_spin_unlock()
> lock->val == 0
> cmpxchg(&lock->val, val, new)
> fails
> val = old (0)
> repeat for (;;) loop:
> new = _Q_LOCKED_VAL
> queued_spin_lock() succeeds
> lock->val == _Q_LOCKED_VAL
> cmpxchg(&lock->val, val, new)
> fails
> val = old (_Q_LOCKED_VAL)
> repeat for (;;) loop:
>
> ... and we are back to the P0 state above when it first entered
> the loop, hence no progress. P1 never enters slowpath.

I don't see any problem in removing this second loop. Thanks for running
tool to check for problem.

-Longman