Re: [PATCH -v4 6/8] locking/mutex: Restructure wait loop

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 04:17:21PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> >  		if (!first && __mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, &waiter)) {
> >  			first = true;
> >  			__mutex_set_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF);
> >  		}
> > +
> > +		set_task_state(task, state);
> 
> With this change, we no longer hold the lock wit_hen we set the task
> state, and it's ordered strictly *after* setting the HANDOFF flag.
> Doesn't that mean that the unlock code can see the HANDOFF flag, issue
> the wakeup, but then we come in and overwrite the task state?
> 
> I'm struggling to work out whether that's an issue, but it certainly
> feels odd and is a change from the previous behaviour.

OK, so after a discussion on IRC the problem appears to have been
unfamiliarity with the basic sleep/wakeup scheme. Mutex used to be the
odd duck out for being fully serialized by wait_lock.

The below adds a few words on how the 'normal' sleep/wakeup scheme
works.


---
Subject: sched: Better explain sleep/wakeup
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed Oct 19 15:45:27 CEST 2016

There were a few questions wrt how sleep-wakeup works. Try and explain
it more.

Requested-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
 include/linux/sched.h |   52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
 kernel/sched/core.c   |   15 +++++++-------
 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -262,20 +262,9 @@ extern char ___assert_task_state[1 - 2*!
 #define set_task_state(tsk, state_value)			\
 	do {							\
 		(tsk)->task_state_change = _THIS_IP_;		\
-		smp_store_mb((tsk)->state, (state_value));		\
+		smp_store_mb((tsk)->state, (state_value));	\
 	} while (0)
 
-/*
- * set_current_state() includes a barrier so that the write of current->state
- * is correctly serialised wrt the caller's subsequent test of whether to
- * actually sleep:
- *
- *	set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
- *	if (do_i_need_to_sleep())
- *		schedule();
- *
- * If the caller does not need such serialisation then use __set_current_state()
- */
 #define __set_current_state(state_value)			\
 	do {							\
 		current->task_state_change = _THIS_IP_;		\
@@ -284,11 +273,19 @@ extern char ___assert_task_state[1 - 2*!
 #define set_current_state(state_value)				\
 	do {							\
 		current->task_state_change = _THIS_IP_;		\
-		smp_store_mb(current->state, (state_value));		\
+		smp_store_mb(current->state, (state_value));	\
 	} while (0)
 
 #else
 
+/*
+ * @tsk had better be current, or you get to keep the pieces.
+ *
+ * The only reason is that computing current can be more expensive than
+ * using a pointer that's already available.
+ *
+ * Therefore, see set_current_state().
+ */
 #define __set_task_state(tsk, state_value)		\
 	do { (tsk)->state = (state_value); } while (0)
 #define set_task_state(tsk, state_value)		\
@@ -299,11 +296,34 @@ extern char ___assert_task_state[1 - 2*!
  * is correctly serialised wrt the caller's subsequent test of whether to
  * actually sleep:
  *
+ *   for (;;) {
  *	set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
- *	if (do_i_need_to_sleep())
- *		schedule();
+ *	if (!need_sleep)
+ *		break;
+ *
+ *	schedule();
+ *   }
+ *   __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
+ *
+ * If the caller does not need such serialisation (because, for instance, the
+ * condition test and condition change and wakeup are under the same lock) then
+ * use __set_current_state().
+ *
+ * The above is typically ordered against the wakeup, which does:
+ *
+ *	need_sleep = false;
+ *	wake_up_state(p, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
+ *
+ * Where wake_up_state() (and all other wakeup primitives) imply enough
+ * barriers to order the store of the variable against wakeup.
+ *
+ * Wakeup will do: if (@state & p->state) p->state = TASK_RUNNING, that is,
+ * once it observes the TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE store the waking CPU can issue a
+ * TASK_RUNNING store which can collide with __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING).
+ *
+ * This is obviously fine, since they both store the exact same value.
  *
- * If the caller does not need such serialisation then use __set_current_state()
+ * Also see the comments of try_to_wake_up().
  */
 #define __set_current_state(state_value)		\
 	do { current->state = (state_value); } while (0)
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -2000,14 +2000,15 @@ static void ttwu_queue(struct task_struc
  * @state: the mask of task states that can be woken
  * @wake_flags: wake modifier flags (WF_*)
  *
- * Put it on the run-queue if it's not already there. The "current"
- * thread is always on the run-queue (except when the actual
- * re-schedule is in progress), and as such you're allowed to do
- * the simpler "current->state = TASK_RUNNING" to mark yourself
- * runnable without the overhead of this.
+ * If (@state & @p->state) @p->state = TASK_RUNNING.
  *
- * Return: %true if @p was woken up, %false if it was already running.
- * or @state didn't match @p's state.
+ * If the task was not queued/runnable, also place it back on a runqueue.
+ *
+ * Atomic against schedule() which would dequeue a task, also see
+ * set_current_state().
+ *
+ * Return: %true if @p->state changes (an actual wakeup was done),
+ *	   %false otherwise.
  */
 static int
 try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int wake_flags)