There used to be a BUG_ON(current->pi_blocked_on) in the lock acquisition
functions, but that vanished in one of the rtmutex overhauls.
Bring it back in form of a lockdep assert to catch code paths which take
rtmutex based locks with current::pi_blocked_on != NULL.
Reported-by: Crystal Wood <swood@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230908162254.999499-7-bigeasy@linutronix.de
Have rt_mutex use the rt_mutex specific scheduler helpers to avoid
recursion vs rtlock on the PI state.
[[ peterz: adapted to new names ]]
Reported-by: Crystal Wood <swood@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230908162254.999499-6-bigeasy@linutronix.de
On PREEMPT_RT, rw_semaphore and rwlock_t locks are unfair to writers.
Readers can indefinitely acquire the lock unless the writer fully acquired
the lock, which might never happen if there is always a reader in the
critical section owning the lock.
Mel Gorman reported that since LTP-20220121 the dio_truncate test case
went from having 1 reader to having 16 readers and that number of readers
is sufficient to prevent the down_write ever succeeding while readers
exist. Eventually the test is killed after 30 minutes as a failure.
Mel proposed a timeout to limit how long a writer can be blocked until
the reader is forced into the slowpath.
Thomas argued that there is no added value by providing this timeout. From
a PREEMPT_RT point of view, there are no critical rw_semaphore or rwlock_t
locks left where the reader must be preferred.
Mitigate indefinite writer starvation by forcing the READER into the
slowpath once the WRITER attempts to acquire the lock.
Reported-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/877cwbq4cq.ffs@tglx
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230321161140.HMcQEhHb@linutronix.de
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Adding the lock contention tracepoints in various lock function slow
paths. Note that each arch can define spinlock differently, I only
added it only to the generic qspinlock for now.
Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Tested-by: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220322185709.141236-3-namhyung@kernel.org
Instead of a full barrier around the Rmw insn, micro-optimize
for weakly ordered archs such that we only provide the required
ACQUIRE semantics when taking the read lock.
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210920052031.54220-2-dave@stgolabs.net
The rw_semaphore and rwlock_t implementation both wake the waiter while
holding the rt_mutex_base::wait_lock acquired.
This can be optimized by waking the waiter lockless outside of the
locked section to avoid a needless contention on the
rt_mutex_base::wait_lock lock.
Extend rt_mutex_wake_q_add() to also accept task and state and use it in
__rwbase_read_unlock().
Suggested-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210928150006.597310-3-bigeasy@linutronix.de
Readers of rwbase can lock and unlock without taking any inner lock, if
that happens, we need the ordering provided by atomic operations to
satisfy the ordering semantics of lock/unlock. Without that, considering
the follow case:
{ X = 0 initially }
CPU 0 CPU 1
===== =====
rt_write_lock();
X = 1
rt_write_unlock():
atomic_add(READER_BIAS - WRITER_BIAS, ->readers);
// ->readers is READER_BIAS.
rt_read_lock():
if ((r = atomic_read(->readers)) < 0) // True
atomic_try_cmpxchg(->readers, r, r + 1); // succeed.
<acquire the read lock via fast path>
r1 = X; // r1 may be 0, because nothing prevent the reordering
// of "X=1" and atomic_add() on CPU 1.
Therefore audit every usage of atomic operations that may happen in a
fast path, and add necessary barriers.
Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210909110203.953991276@infradead.org
The code in rwbase_write_lock() is a little non-obvious vs the
read+set 'trylock', extract the sequence into a helper function to
clarify the code.
This also provides a single site to fix fast-path ordering.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/YUCq3L+u44NDieEJ@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
Noticed while looking at the readers race.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210909110203.828203010@infradead.org
On PREEMPT_RT, rw_semaphores and rwlocks are substituted with an rtmutex and
a reader count. The implementation is writer unfair, as it is not feasible
to do priority inheritance on multiple readers, but experience has shown
that real-time workloads are not the typical workloads which are sensitive
to writer starvation.
The inner workings of rw_semaphores and rwlocks on RT are almost identical
except for the task state and signal handling. rw_semaphores are not state
preserving over a contention, they are expected to enter and leave with state
== TASK_RUNNING. rwlocks have a mechanism to preserve the state of the task
at entry and restore it after unblocking taking potential non-lock related
wakeups into account. rw_semaphores can also be subject to signal handling
interrupting a blocked state, while rwlocks ignore signals.
To avoid code duplication, provide a shared implementation which takes the
small difference vs. state and signals into account. The code is included
into the relevant rw_semaphore/rwlock base code and compiled for each use
case separately.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210815211302.957920571@linutronix.de
Thomas Gleixner