Re: [PATCH] osq_lock: fix osq_lock queue corruption
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Tue Jul 18 2017 - 07:26:10 EST
I added a few pictures, just the text didn't want to make sense to me.
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 07:17:56PM +0530, Prateek Sood wrote:
> Fix ordering of link creation between node->prev and prev->next in
> osq_lock(). A case in which the status of optimistic spin queue is
> CPU6->CPU2 in which CPU6 has acquired the lock.
tail
v
,-. <- ,-.
|6| |2|
`-' -> `-'
> At this point if CPU0 comes in to acquire osq_lock, it will update the
> tail count.
CPU2 CPU0
----------------------------------
tail
v
,-. <- ,-. ,-.
|6| |2| |0|
`-' -> `-' `-'
> After tail count update if CPU2 starts to unqueue itself from
> optimistic spin queue, it will find updated tail count with CPU0 and
> update CPU2 node->next to NULL in osq_wait_next().
unqueue-A
tail
v
,-. <- ,-. ,-.
|6| |2| |0|
`-' `-' `-'
unqueue-B
->tail != curr && !node->next
> If reordering of following stores happen then
> prev->next where prev being CPU2 would be updated to point to CPU0 node:
tail
v
,-. <- ,-. ,-.
|6| |2| |0|
`-' -> `-' -> `-'
osq_wait_next()
node->next <- 0
xchg(node->next, NULL)
tail
v
,-. <- ,-. ,-.
|6| |2| |0|
`-' `-' `-'
unqueue-C
> At this point if next instruction
> WRITE_ONCE(next->prev, prev);
> in CPU2 path is committed before the update of CPU0 node->prev = prev then
> CPU0 node->prev will point to CPU6 node.
tail
v----------. v
,-. <- ,-. ,-.
|6| |2| |0|
`-' `-' `-'
`----------^
> At this point if CPU0 path's node->prev = prev is committed resulting
> in change of CPU0 prev back to CPU2 node. CPU2 node->next is NULL
> currently,
tail
v
,-. <- ,-. <- ,-.
|6| |2| |0|
`-' `-' `-'
`----------^
> so if CPU0 gets into unqueue path of osq_lock it will keep spinning
> in infinite loop as condition prev->next == node will never be true.
Also updated the comment..
---
kernel/locking/osq_lock.c | 13 +++++++++++++
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
--- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
@@ -109,6 +109,19 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_que
prev = decode_cpu(old);
node->prev = prev;
+
+ /*
+ * osq_lock() unqueue
+ *
+ * node->prev = prev osq_wait_next()
+ * WMB MB
+ * prev->next = node next->prev = prev // unqueue-C
+ *
+ * Here 'node->prev' and 'next->prev' are the same variable and we need
+ * to ensure these stores happen in-order to avoid corrupting the list.
+ */
+ smp_wmb();
+
WRITE_ONCE(prev->next, node);
/*