Re: [PATCH] rwsem: fix missed wakeup due to reordering of load

[Prateek Sood]

On 09/07/2017 08:00 PM, Prateek Sood wrote:
> If a spinner is present, there is a chance that the load of
> rwsem_has_spinner() in rwsem_wake() can be reordered with
> respect to decrement of rwsem count in __up_write() leading
> to wakeup being missed.
> 
>  spinning writer                  up_write caller
>  ---------------                  -----------------------
>  [S] osq_unlock()                 [L] osq
>   spin_lock(wait_lock)
>   sem->count=0xFFFFFFFF00000001
>             +0xFFFFFFFF00000000
>   count=sem->count
>   MB
>                                    sem->count=0xFFFFFFFE00000001
>                                              -0xFFFFFFFF00000001
>                                    spin_trylock(wait_lock)
>                                    return
>  rwsem_try_write_lock(count)
>  spin_unlock(wait_lock)
>  schedule()
> 
> Reordering of atomic_long_sub_return_release() in __up_write()
> and rwsem_has_spinner() in rwsem_wake() can cause missing of
> wakeup in up_write() context. In spinning writer, sem->count
> and local variable count is 0XFFFFFFFE00000001. It would result
> in rwsem_try_write_lock() failing to acquire rwsem and spinning
> writer going to sleep in rwsem_down_write_failed().
> 
> The smp_rmb() will make sure that the spinner state is
> consulted after sem->count is updated in up_write context.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Prateek Sood <prsood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
> index 02f6606..1fefe6d 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
> @@ -613,6 +613,33 @@ struct rw_semaphore *rwsem_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>  	DEFINE_WAKE_Q(wake_q);
>  
>  	/*
> +	* __rwsem_down_write_failed_common(sem)
> +	*   rwsem_optimistic_spin(sem)
> +	*     osq_unlock(sem->osq)
> +	*   ...
> +	*   atomic_long_add_return(&sem->count)
> +	*
> +	*      - VS -
> +	*
> +	*              __up_write()
> +	*                if (atomic_long_sub_return_release(&sem->count) < 0)
> +	*                  rwsem_wake(sem)
> +	*                    osq_is_locked(&sem->osq)
> +	*
> +	* And __up_write() must observe !osq_is_locked() when it observes the
> +	* atomic_long_add_return() in order to not miss a wakeup.
> +	*
> +	* This boils down to:
> +	*
> +	* [S.rel] X = 1                [RmW] r0 = (Y += 0)
> +	*         MB                         RMB
> +	* [RmW]   Y += 1               [L]   r1 = X
> +	*
> +	* exists (r0=1 /\ r1=0)
> +	*/
> +	smp_rmb();
> +
> +	/*
>  	 * If a spinner is present, it is not necessary to do the wakeup.
>  	 * Try to do wakeup only if the trylock succeeds to minimize
>  	 * spinlock contention which may introduce too much delay in the
> 

Hi Folks,

Do you have any more suggestion/feedback on this patch.


Regards
Prateek

-- 
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation
Center, Inc., is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation
Collaborative Project