Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] locking: Implement an algorithm choice for Wound-Wait mutexes

From: Thomas Hellstrom
Date: Thu Jun 14 2018 - 07:10:37 EST

On 06/14/2018 12:38 PM, Andrea Parri wrote:
Hi Thomas,

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 09:29:21AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
The current Wound-Wait mutex algorithm is actually not Wound-Wait but
Wait-Die. Implement also Wound-Wait as a per-ww-class choice. Wound-Wait
is, contrary to Wait-Die a preemptive algorithm and is known to generate
fewer backoffs. Testing reveals that this is true if the
number of simultaneous contending transactions is small.
As the number of simultaneous contending threads increases, Wait-Wound
becomes inferior to Wait-Die in terms of elapsed time.
Possibly due to the larger number of held locks of sleeping transactions.

Update documentation and callers.

Timings using git://people.freedesktop.org/~thomash/ww_mutex_test
tag patch-18-06-14

Each thread runs 100000 batches of lock / unlock 800 ww mutexes randomly
chosen out of 100000. Four core Intel x86_64:

Algorithm #threads Rollbacks time
Wound-Wait 4 ~100 ~17s.
Wait-Die 4 ~150000 ~19s.
Wound-Wait 16 ~360000 ~109s.
Wait-Die 16 ~450000 ~82s.

Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Sean Paul <seanpaul@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: David Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Kate Stewart <kstewart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: linaro-mm-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx>

---
v2:
* Update API according to review comment by Greg Kroah-Hartman.
* Address review comments by Peter Zijlstra:
- Avoid _Bool in composites
- Fix typo
- Use __mutex_owner() where applicable
- Rely on built-in barriers for the main loop exit condition,
struct ww_acquire_ctx::wounded. Update code comments.
- Explain unlocked use of list_empty().
---
Documentation/locking/ww-mutex-design.txt | 54 ++++++++++++----
drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c | 2 +-
include/linux/ww_mutex.h | 19 ++++--
kernel/locking/locktorture.c | 2 +-
kernel/locking/mutex.c | 103 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c | 2 +-
lib/locking-selftest.c | 2 +-
8 files changed, 156 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/locking/ww-mutex-design.txt b/Documentation/locking/ww-mutex-design.txt
index 34c3a1b50b9a..b9597def9581 100644
--- a/Documentation/locking/ww-mutex-design.txt
+++ b/Documentation/locking/ww-mutex-design.txt
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-Wait/Wound Deadlock-Proof Mutex Design
+Wound/Wait Deadlock-Proof Mutex Design
======================================
Please read mutex-design.txt first, as it applies to wait/wound mutexes too.
@@ -32,10 +32,23 @@ the oldest task) wins, and the one with the higher reservation id (i.e. the
younger task) unlocks all of the buffers that it has already locked, and then
tries again.
-In the RDBMS literature this deadlock handling approach is called wait/wound:
-The older tasks waits until it can acquire the contended lock. The younger tasks
-needs to back off and drop all the locks it is currently holding, i.e. the
-younger task is wounded.
+In the RDBMS literature, a reservation ticket is associated with a transaction.
+and the deadlock handling approach is called Wait-Die. The name is based on
+the actions of a locking thread when it encounters an already locked mutex.
+If the transaction holding the lock is younger, the locking transaction waits.
+If the transaction holding the lock is older, the locking transaction backs off
+and dies. Hence Wait-Die.
+There is also another algorithm called Wound-Wait:
+If the transaction holding the lock is younger, the locking transaction
+preempts the transaction holding the lock, requiring it to back off. It
+Wounds the other transaction.
+If the transaction holding the lock is older, it waits for the other
+transaction. Hence Wound-Wait.
+The two algorithms are both fair in that a transaction will eventually succeed.
+However, the Wound-Wait algorithm is typically stated to generate fewer backoffs
+compared to Wait-Die, but is, on the other hand, associated with more work than
+Wait-Die when recovering from a backoff. Wound-Wait is also a preemptive
+algorithm which requires a reliable way to preempt another transaction.
Concepts
--------
@@ -47,10 +60,12 @@ Acquire context: To ensure eventual forward progress it is important the a task
trying to acquire locks doesn't grab a new reservation id, but keeps the one it
acquired when starting the lock acquisition. This ticket is stored in the
acquire context. Furthermore the acquire context keeps track of debugging state
-to catch w/w mutex interface abuse.
+to catch w/w mutex interface abuse. An acquire context is representing a
+transaction.
W/w class: In contrast to normal mutexes the lock class needs to be explicit for
-w/w mutexes, since it is required to initialize the acquire context.
+w/w mutexes, since it is required to initialize the acquire context. The lock
+class also specifies what algorithm to use, Wound-Wait or Wait-Die.
Furthermore there are three different class of w/w lock acquire functions:
@@ -90,6 +105,12 @@ provided.
Usage
-----
+The algorithm (Wait-Die vs Wound-Wait) is chosen by using either
+DEFINE_WW_CLASS_WDIE() for Wait-Die or DEFINE_WW_CLASS() for Wound-Wait.
+As a rough rule of thumb, use Wound-Wait iff you typically expect the number
+of simultaneous competing transactions to be small, and the rollback cost can
+be substantial.
+
Three different ways to acquire locks within the same w/w class. Common
definitions for methods #1 and #2:
@@ -312,12 +333,23 @@ Design:
We maintain the following invariants for the wait list:
(1) Waiters with an acquire context are sorted by stamp order; waiters
without an acquire context are interspersed in FIFO order.
- (2) Among waiters with contexts, only the first one can have other locks
- acquired already (ctx->acquired > 0). Note that this waiter may come
- after other waiters without contexts in the list.
+ (2) For Wait-Die, among waiters with contexts, only the first one can have
+ other locks acquired already (ctx->acquired > 0). Note that this waiter
+ may come after other waiters without contexts in the list.
+
+ The Wound-Wait preemption is implemented with a lazy-preemption scheme:
+ The wounded status of the transaction is checked only when there is
+ contention for a new lock and hence a true chance of deadlock. In that
+ situation, if the transaction is wounded, it backs off, clears the
+ wounded status and retries. A great benefit of implementing preemption in
+ this way is that the wounded transaction can identify a contending lock to
+ wait for before restarting the transaction. Just blindly restarting the
+ transaction would likely make the transaction end up in a situation where
+ it would have to back off again.
In general, not much contention is expected. The locks are typically used to
- serialize access to resources for devices.
+ serialize access to resources for devices, and optimization focus should
+ therefore be directed towards the uncontended cases.
Lockdep:
Special care has been taken to warn for as many cases of api abuse
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c b/drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c
index 314eb1071cce..b94a4bab2ecd 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@
* write-side updates.
*/
-DEFINE_WW_CLASS(reservation_ww_class);
+DEFINE_WW_CLASS_WDIE(reservation_ww_class);
EXPORT_SYMBOL(reservation_ww_class);
struct lock_class_key reservation_seqcount_class;
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c
index 8a5100685875..ff00a814f617 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@
* lists and lookup data structures.
*/
-static DEFINE_WW_CLASS(crtc_ww_class);
+static DEFINE_WW_CLASS_WDIE(crtc_ww_class);
/**
* drm_modeset_lock_all - take all modeset locks
diff --git a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
index 39fda195bf78..3880813b7db5 100644
--- a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
+++ b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
@@ -8,6 +8,8 @@
*
* Wound/wait implementation:
* Copyright (C) 2013 Canonical Ltd.
+ * Choice of algorithm:
+ * Copyright (C) 2018 WMWare Inc.
*
* This file contains the main data structure and API definitions.
*/
@@ -23,15 +25,17 @@ struct ww_class {
struct lock_class_key mutex_key;
const char *acquire_name;
const char *mutex_name;
+ unsigned int is_wait_die;
};
struct ww_acquire_ctx {
struct task_struct *task;
unsigned long stamp;
unsigned acquired;
+ unsigned int wounded;
+ struct ww_class *ww_class;
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES
unsigned done_acquire;
- struct ww_class *ww_class;
struct ww_mutex *contending_lock;
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
@@ -58,17 +62,21 @@ struct ww_mutex {
# define __WW_CLASS_MUTEX_INITIALIZER(lockname, class)
#endif
-#define __WW_CLASS_INITIALIZER(ww_class) \
+#define __WW_CLASS_INITIALIZER(ww_class, _is_wait_die) \
{ .stamp = ATOMIC_LONG_INIT(0) \
, .acquire_name = #ww_class "_acquire" \
- , .mutex_name = #ww_class "_mutex" }
+ , .mutex_name = #ww_class "_mutex" \
+ , .is_wait_die = _is_wait_die }
#define __WW_MUTEX_INITIALIZER(lockname, class) \
{ .base = __MUTEX_INITIALIZER(lockname.base) \
__WW_CLASS_MUTEX_INITIALIZER(lockname, class) }
#define DEFINE_WW_CLASS(classname) \
- struct ww_class classname = __WW_CLASS_INITIALIZER(classname)
+ struct ww_class classname = __WW_CLASS_INITIALIZER(classname, 0)
+
+#define DEFINE_WW_CLASS_WDIE(classname) \
+ struct ww_class classname = __WW_CLASS_INITIALIZER(classname, 1)
#define DEFINE_WW_MUTEX(mutexname, ww_class) \
struct ww_mutex mutexname = __WW_MUTEX_INITIALIZER(mutexname, ww_class)
@@ -123,8 +131,9 @@ static inline void ww_acquire_init(struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx,
ctx->task = current;
ctx->stamp = atomic_long_inc_return_relaxed(&ww_class->stamp);
ctx->acquired = 0;
-#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES
ctx->ww_class = ww_class;
+ ctx->wounded = false;
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES
ctx->done_acquire = 0;
ctx->contending_lock = NULL;
#endif
diff --git a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c
index 6850ffd69125..e861c1bf0e1e 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c
@@ -365,7 +365,7 @@ static struct lock_torture_ops mutex_lock_ops = {
};
#include <linux/ww_mutex.h>
-static DEFINE_WW_CLASS(torture_ww_class);
+static DEFINE_WW_CLASS_WDIE(torture_ww_class);
static DEFINE_WW_MUTEX(torture_ww_mutex_0, &torture_ww_class);
static DEFINE_WW_MUTEX(torture_ww_mutex_1, &torture_ww_class);
static DEFINE_WW_MUTEX(torture_ww_mutex_2, &torture_ww_class);
diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
index 2048359f33d2..ffa00b5aaf03 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -290,12 +290,49 @@ __ww_ctx_stamp_after(struct ww_acquire_ctx *a, struct ww_acquire_ctx *b)
(a->stamp != b->stamp || a > b);
}
+/*
+ * Wound the lock holder transaction if it's younger than the contending
+ * transaction, and there is a possibility of a deadlock.
+ * Also if the lock holder transaction isn't the current transaction,
+ * make sure it's woken up in case it's sleeping on another ww mutex.
+ */
+static bool __ww_mutex_wound(struct mutex *lock,
+ struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx,
+ struct ww_acquire_ctx *hold_ctx)
+{
+ struct task_struct *owner = __mutex_owner(lock);
+
+ lockdep_assert_held(&lock->wait_lock);
+
+ if (owner && hold_ctx && __ww_ctx_stamp_after(hold_ctx, ww_ctx) &&
+ ww_ctx->acquired > 0) {
+ hold_ctx->wounded = 1;
+
+ /*
+ * wake_up_process() paired with set_current_state() inserts
+ * sufficient barriers to make sure @owner either sees it's
+ * wounded or has a wakeup pending to re-read the wounded
+ * state.
IIUC, "sufficient barriers" = full memory barriers (here). (You may
want to be more specific.)

Thanks for reviewing!
OK. What about if someone relaxes that in the future? I mean, what we care about in this code is just that we have sufficient barriers for that statement to be true, regardless what type of barriers those really are?

+ *
+ * The value of hold_ctx->wounded in
+ * __ww_mutex_lock_check_stamp();
Missing parts/incomplete sentence?

Oops. I'll fix in next version.



Andrea
Thanks,
Thomas