Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: Implement DRW lock

From: Paul E. McKenney
Date: Sat Jun 08 2019 - 12:44:05 EST

Next message: Paul E. McKenney: "Re: [PATCH HACK RFC] cpu: Prevent late-arriving interrupts from disrupting offline"
Previous message: Gen Zhang: "Re: [PATCH v3] vt: Fix a missing-check bug in con_init()"
In reply to: Nikolay Borisov: "Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: Implement DRW lock"
Next in thread: Andrea Parri: "Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: Implement DRW lock"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 07:21:53PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> On 8.06.19 Ð. 19:06 Ñ., Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 06:44:17PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> >> On 8.06.19 Ð. 18:13 Ñ., Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 02:59:34PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> >>>> On 7.06.19 Ð. 13:52 Ñ., Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 04:52:18PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> >>>>>> A (D)ouble (R)eader (W)riter lock is a locking primitive that allows
> >>>>>> to have multiple readers or multiple writers but not multiple readers
> >>>>>> and writers holding it concurrently. The code is factored out from
> >>>>>> the existing open-coded locking scheme used to exclude pending
> >>>>>> snapshots from nocow writers and vice-versa. Current implementation
> >>>>>> actually favors Readers (that is snapshot creaters) to writers (nocow
> >>>>>> writers of the filesystem).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@xxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A preliminary question...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What prevents the following sequence of events from happening?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> o btrfs_drw_write_lock() invokes btrfs_drw_try_write_lock(),
> >>>>> which sees that lock->readers is zero and thus executes
> >>>>> percpu_counter_inc(&lock->writers).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> o btrfs_drw_read_lock() increments lock->readers, does the
> >>>>> smp_mb__after_atomic(), and then does the wait_event().
> >>>>> Because btrfs_drw_try_write_lock() incremented its CPU's
> >>>>> lock->writers, the sum is the value one, so it blocks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> o btrfs_drw_try_write_lock() checks lock->readers, sees that
> >>>>> it is now nonzero, and thus invokes btrfs_drw_read_unlock()
> >>>>> (which decrements the current CPU's counter, so that a future
> >>>>> sum would get zero), and returns false.
> >>>>
> >>>> btrfs_drw_read_unlock is actually btrfs_drw_write_unlock, my bad, Filipe
> >>>> already pointed that out and I've fixed it.
> >>>
> >>> Ah! I must then ask what you are using to test this. kernel/locktorture.c?
> >
> > Right... Make that kernel/locking/locktorture.c
> >
> >> At the moment - nothing. I rely on the fact that the original code I
> >> extracted that from is bug-free (ha-ha). So perhahps hooking up
> >> locktorture seems like a good suggestion. From a quick look I guess I
> >> could mostly model that lock against the rwsem. The question is how do I
> >> model the trylock semantics as well as the "double" part?
> >
> > Implementing a correct synchronization primitive is like committing the
> > perfect crime. There are at least 50 things that can go wrong, and if
> > you are a highly experienced genius, you -might- be able to anticipate
> > and handle 25 of them. (With apologies to any Kathleen Turner fans who
> > might still be alive.) Please note that this still applies to code
> > ported from somewhere else because different environments likely have
> > different assumptions and properties.
>
> I agree, I'm far from thinking that the locking scheme is actually bug
> free (hence the 'ha-ha') I'm not that arrogant (yet).

;-) ;-) ;-)

> > Therefore, heavy-duty stress testing is not optional. In fact, formal
> > verification is becoming non-optional as well -- please see Catalin
> > Marinas's work on verifying the Linux kernel's queued spinlock for
> > an example.
>
> I assume you are referring to "Formal Methods for kernel hackers"? If
> so, TLA+ has been on my radar ever since
> https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/tla/formal-methods-amazon.pdf .

Yes, and good to hear. There are other options, including Promela/spin,
cbmc, and so on.

> However I've yet to invest the time to be able to properly model a real
> protocol (be it locking or otherwise) in it. Perhahps I could use the
> DRW lock as a learning opportunity, we'll see.

The learning would likely be reusable, and might pay for itself in
terms of bugs found more quickly and with less effort. Mileage can
vary, as always, of course.

> > You are right, current locktorture would get upset about having concurrent
> > writers. To teach locktorture about this, I suggest adding a flag to
> > the lock_torture_ops structure named something like concurrent_write,
> > but hopefully shorter. Then this flag can be used to disable the "only
> > one writer" check in lock_torture_writer().
> >
> > Seem reasonable?
>
> Good idea, I'll see to extending lock-torture but this will happen in a
> week or so because I'm about to go on a holiday.

Have a great holiday, and looking forward to seeing your next version
and locktorture modifications.

Thanx, Paul

> >>>> The idea here is that if a reader came after we've incremented out
> >>>> percpu counter then it would have blocked, the writer would see that and
> >>>> invoke btrfs_drw_write_unlock which will decrement the percpu counter
> >>>> and will wakeup the reader that is now blocked on pending_readers.
> >>>
> >>> OK, I will await your next version.
> >>>
> >>> Thanx, Paul
> >>>
> >>>>> o btrfs_drw_write_lock() therefore does its wait_event().
> >>>>> Because lock->readers is nonzero, it blocks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> o Both tasks are now blocked. In the absence of future calls
> >>>>> to these functions (and perhaps even given such future calls),
> >>>>> we have deadlock.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So what am I missing here?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanx, Paul
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> fs/btrfs/Makefile | 2 +-
> >>>>>> fs/btrfs/drw_lock.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>>> fs/btrfs/drw_lock.h | 23 +++++++++++++++
> >>>>>> 3 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>>> create mode 100644 fs/btrfs/drw_lock.c
> >>>>>> create mode 100644 fs/btrfs/drw_lock.h
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/Makefile b/fs/btrfs/Makefile
> >>>>>> index ca693dd554e9..dc60127791e6 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/Makefile
> >>>>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/Makefile
> >>>>>> @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ btrfs-y += super.o ctree.o extent-tree.o print-tree.o root-tree.o dir-item.o \
> >>>>>> export.o tree-log.o free-space-cache.o zlib.o lzo.o zstd.o \
> >>>>>> compression.o delayed-ref.o relocation.o delayed-inode.o scrub.o \
> >>>>>> reada.o backref.o ulist.o qgroup.o send.o dev-replace.o raid56.o \
> >>>>>> - uuid-tree.o props.o free-space-tree.o tree-checker.o
> >>>>>> + uuid-tree.o props.o free-space-tree.o tree-checker.o drw_lock.o
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> btrfs-$(CONFIG_BTRFS_FS_POSIX_ACL) += acl.o
> >>>>>> btrfs-$(CONFIG_BTRFS_FS_CHECK_INTEGRITY) += check-integrity.o
> >>>>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/drw_lock.c b/fs/btrfs/drw_lock.c
> >>>>>> new file mode 100644
> >>>>>> index 000000000000..9681bf7544be
> >>>>>> --- /dev/null
> >>>>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/drw_lock.c
> >>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
> >>>>>> +#include "drw_lock.h"
> >>>>>> +#include "ctree.h"
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +void btrfs_drw_lock_init(struct btrfs_drw_lock *lock)
> >>>>>> +{
> >>>>>> + atomic_set(&lock->readers, 0);
> >>>>>> + percpu_counter_init(&lock->writers, 0, GFP_KERNEL);
> >>>>>> + init_waitqueue_head(&lock->pending_readers);
> >>>>>> + init_waitqueue_head(&lock->pending_writers);
> >>>>>> +}
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +void btrfs_drw_lock_destroy(struct btrfs_drw_lock *lock)
> >>>>>> +{
> >>>>>> + percpu_counter_destroy(&lock->writers);
> >>>>>> +}
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +bool btrfs_drw_try_write_lock(struct btrfs_drw_lock *lock)
> >>>>>> +{
> >>>>>> + if (atomic_read(&lock->readers))
> >>>>>> + return false;
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + percpu_counter_inc(&lock->writers);
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + /*
> >>>>>> + * Ensure writers count is updated before we check for
> >>>>>> + * pending readers
> >>>>>> + */
> >>>>>> + smp_mb();
> >>>>>> + if (atomic_read(&lock->readers)) {
> >>>>>> + btrfs_drw_read_unlock(lock);
> >>>>>> + return false;
> >>>>>> + }
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + return true;
> >>>>>> +}
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +void btrfs_drw_write_lock(struct btrfs_drw_lock *lock)
> >>>>>> +{
> >>>>>> + while(true) {
> >>>>>> + if (btrfs_drw_try_write_lock(lock))
> >>>>>> + return;
> >>>>>> + wait_event(lock->pending_writers, !atomic_read(&lock->readers));
> >>>>>> + }
> >>>>>> +}
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +void btrfs_drw_write_unlock(struct btrfs_drw_lock *lock)
> >>>>>> +{
> >>>>>> + percpu_counter_dec(&lock->writers);
> >>>>>> + cond_wake_up(&lock->pending_readers);
> >>>>>> +}
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +void btrfs_drw_read_lock(struct btrfs_drw_lock *lock)
> >>>>>> +{
> >>>>>> + atomic_inc(&lock->readers);
> >>>>>> + smp_mb__after_atomic();
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + wait_event(lock->pending_readers,
> >>>>>> + percpu_counter_sum(&lock->writers) == 0);
> >>>>>> +}
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +void btrfs_drw_read_unlock(struct btrfs_drw_lock *lock)
> >>>>>> +{
> >>>>>> + /*
> >>>>>> + * Atomic RMW operations imply full barrier, so woken up writers
> >>>>>> + * are guaranteed to see the decrement
> >>>>>> + */
> >>>>>> + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&lock->readers))
> >>>>>> + wake_up(&lock->pending_writers);
> >>>>>> +}
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/drw_lock.h b/fs/btrfs/drw_lock.h
> >>>>>> new file mode 100644
> >>>>>> index 000000000000..baff59561c06
> >>>>>> --- /dev/null
> >>>>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/drw_lock.h
> >>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
> >>>>>> +#ifndef BTRFS_DRW_LOCK_H
> >>>>>> +#define BTRFS_DRW_LOCK_H
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +#include <linux/atomic.h>
> >>>>>> +#include <linux/wait.h>
> >>>>>> +#include <linux/percpu_counter.h>
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +struct btrfs_drw_lock {
> >>>>>> + atomic_t readers;
> >>>>>> + struct percpu_counter writers;
> >>>>>> + wait_queue_head_t pending_writers;
> >>>>>> + wait_queue_head_t pending_readers;
> >>>>>> +};
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +void btrfs_drw_lock_init(struct btrfs_drw_lock *lock);
> >>>>>> +void btrfs_drw_lock_destroy(struct btrfs_drw_lock *lock);
> >>>>>> +void btrfs_drw_write_lock(struct btrfs_drw_lock *lock);
> >>>>>> +bool btrfs_drw_try_write_lock(struct btrfs_drw_lock *lock);
> >>>>>> +void btrfs_drw_write_unlock(struct btrfs_drw_lock *lock);
> >>>>>> +void btrfs_drw_read_lock(struct btrfs_drw_lock *lock);
> >>>>>> +void btrfs_drw_read_unlock(struct btrfs_drw_lock *lock);
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +#endif
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> 2.17.1
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>

Next message: Paul E. McKenney: "Re: [PATCH HACK RFC] cpu: Prevent late-arriving interrupts from disrupting offline"
Previous message: Gen Zhang: "Re: [PATCH v3] vt: Fix a missing-check bug in con_init()"
In reply to: Nikolay Borisov: "Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: Implement DRW lock"
Next in thread: Andrea Parri: "Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: Implement DRW lock"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]