Re: [PATCH] mm: slub: Ensure that slab_unlock() is atomic
From: Vineet Gupta
Date: Mon Mar 14 2016 - 04:06:13 EST
On Wednesday 09 March 2016 05:10 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Subject: bitops: Do not default to __clear_bit() for __clear_bit_unlock()
> __clear_bit_unlock() is a special little snowflake. While it carries the
> non-atomic '__' prefix, it is specifically documented to pair with
> test_and_set_bit() and therefore should be 'somewhat' atomic.
> Therefore the generic implementation of __clear_bit_unlock() cannot use
> the fully non-atomic __clear_bit() as a default.
> If an arch is able to do better; is must provide an implementation of
> __clear_bit_unlock() itself.
> Specifically, this came up as a result of hackbench livelock'ing in
> slab_lock() on ARC with SMP + SLUB + !LLSC.
> The issue was incorrect pairing of atomic ops.
> slab_lock() -> bit_spin_lock() -> test_and_set_bit()
> slab_unlock() -> __bit_spin_unlock() -> __clear_bit()
> The non serializing __clear_bit() was getting "lost"
> 80543b8e: ld_s r2,[r13,0] <--- (A) Finds PG_locked is set
> 80543b90: or r3,r2,1 <--- (B) other core unlocks right here
> 80543b94: st_s r3,[r13,0] <--- (C) sets PG_locked (overwrites unlock)
> Fixes ARC STAR 9000817404 (and probably more).
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Reported-by: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Peter, I don't see this in linux-next yet. I'm hoping you will send it Linus' way