Re: [RFC] locking: rwbase: Take care of ordering guarantee for fastpath reader
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Wed Sep 08 2021 - 10:42:38 EST
On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 09:08:52PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 01:51:24PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> [...]
> > @@ -201,23 +207,30 @@ static int __sched rwbase_write_lock(struct rwbase_rt *rwb,
> > {
> > struct rt_mutex_base *rtm = &rwb->rtmutex;
> > unsigned long flags;
> > + int readers;
> >
> > /* Take the rtmutex as a first step */
> > if (rwbase_rtmutex_lock_state(rtm, state))
> > return -EINTR;
> >
> > /* Force readers into slow path */
> > - atomic_sub(READER_BIAS, &rwb->readers);
> > + readers = atomic_sub_return_relaxed(READER_BIAS, &rwb->readers);
> >
> > - raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rtm->wait_lock, flags);
> > /*
> > * set_current_state() for rw_semaphore
> > * current_save_and_set_rtlock_wait_state() for rwlock
> > */
> > rwbase_set_and_save_current_state(state);
>
> rwbase_set_and_save_current_state() may eventually call
> current_save_and_set_rtlock_wait_state(), which requires being called
> with irq-off, while rwbase_write_lock() may be called with irq-on. I
> guess we can change the raw_spin_lock() to raw_spin_lock_irqsave() in
> current_save_and_set_rtlock_wait_state() to solve this.
Oh right... that's actually something I pointed out to Thomas during
review, and I suppose we both forgot about it, or figured it didn't
matter enough.
Oooh, Thomas added that lockdep_assert.. still lemme change that to
match set_special_state().
Also,...
---
Subject: sched/wakeup: Strengthen current_save_and_set_rtlock_wait_state()
While looking at current_save_and_set_rtlock_wait_state() I'm thinking
it really ought to use smp_store_mb(), because something like:
current_save_and_set_rtlock_wait_state();
for (;;) {
if (try_lock())
break;
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
if (!cond)
schedule();
raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
set_current_state(TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT);
}
current_restore_rtlock_saved_state();
which is very close to the advertised usage in the comment, is actually
broken I think:
- try_lock() doesn't need to provide any ordering on failure;
- raw_spin_unlock() only needs to provide RELEASE ordering;
which gives that the above turns into something like:
WRITE_ONCE(current->__state, TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT);
raw_spin_unlock(¤t->pi_lock);
raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
if (!cond)
and the load of @cond is then allowed to speculate right before the
__state store, and we've got a missed wakeup -> BAD(tm).
Fixes: 5f220be21418 ("sched/wakeup: Prepare for RT sleeping spin/rwlocks")
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index 1780260f237b..3d3246d7e87d 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -245,7 +245,8 @@ struct task_group;
* if (try_lock())
* break;
* raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
- * schedule_rtlock();
+ * if (!cond)
+ * schedule_rtlock();
* raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
* set_current_state(TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT);
* }
@@ -253,22 +254,24 @@ struct task_group;
*/
#define current_save_and_set_rtlock_wait_state() \
do { \
- lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled(); \
- raw_spin_lock(¤t->pi_lock); \
+ unsigned long flags; /* may shadow */ \
+ \
+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(¤t->pi_lock, flags); \
current->saved_state = current->__state; \
debug_rtlock_wait_set_state(); \
- WRITE_ONCE(current->__state, TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT); \
- raw_spin_unlock(¤t->pi_lock); \
+ smp_store_mb(current->__state, TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT); \
+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(¤t->pi_lock, flags); \
} while (0);
#define current_restore_rtlock_saved_state() \
do { \
- lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled(); \
- raw_spin_lock(¤t->pi_lock); \
+ unsigned long flags; /* may shadow */ \
+ \
+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(¤t->pi_lock, flags); \
debug_rtlock_wait_restore_state(); \
WRITE_ONCE(current->__state, current->saved_state); \
current->saved_state = TASK_RUNNING; \
- raw_spin_unlock(¤t->pi_lock); \
+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(¤t->pi_lock, flags); \
} while (0);
#define get_current_state() READ_ONCE(current->__state)