Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] locking/rwsem: check for active writer/spinner before wakeup

[Waiman Long]

On 08/08/2014 04:38 PM, Jason Low wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-08-08 at 13:21 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-08-08 at 12:50 -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> > > >   __visible __used noinline
> > > > @@ -730,6 +744,23 @@ __mutex_unlock_common_slowpath(struct mutex *lock, int nested)
> > > >   	if (__mutex_slowpath_needs_to_unlock())
> > > >   		atomic_set(&lock->count, 1);
> > > >
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Skipping the mutex_has_owner() check when DEBUG, allows us to
> > > > + * avoid taking the wait_lock in order to do not call mutex_release()
> > > > + * and debug_mutex_unlock() when !DEBUG. This can otherwise result in
> > > > + * deadlocks when another task enters the lock's slowpath in mutex_lock().
> > > > + */
> > > > +#ifndef CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * Abort the wakeup operation if there is an another mutex owner, as the
> > > > +	 * lock was stolen. mutex_unlock() should have cleared the owner field
> > > > +	 * before calling this function. If that field is now set, another task
> > > > +	 * must have acquired the mutex.
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	if (mutex_has_owner(lock))
> > > > +		return;
> > > Would we need the mutex lock count to eventually get set to a negative
> > > value if there are waiters? An optimistic spinner can get the lock and
> > > set lock->count to 0. Then the lock count might remain 0 since a waiter
> > > might not get waken up here to try-lock and set lock->count to -1 if it
> > > goes back to sleep in the lock path.
> > This is a good point, but I think we are safe because we do not rely on
> > strict dependence between the mutex counter and the wait list. So to see
> > if there are waiters to wakeup, we do a !list_empty() check, but to
> > determine the lock state, we rely on the counter.
> Right, though if an optimistic spinner gets the lock, it would set
> lock->count to 0. After it is done with its critical region and calls
> mutex_unlock(), it would skip the slowpath and not wake up the next
> thread either, because it sees that the lock->count is 0. In that case,
> there might be a situation where the following mutex_unlock() call would
> skip waking up the waiter as there's no call to slowpath.

Actually, I am contemplating making similar changes for mutex. One code 
change that I made is for the spinner to change the count value to 
either 0 or -1 depending on the status of list_empty() so as to prevent 
the case of missed wakeup.

-Longman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/