Based on 1 normalized pattern(s):
this program is free software you can redistribute it and or modify
it under the terms of the gnu general public license as published by
the free software foundation either version 2 of the license or at
your option any later version this program is distributed in the
hope that it will be useful but without any warranty without even
the implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular
purpose see the gnu general public license for more details you
should have received a copy of the gnu general public license along
with this program if not you can access it online at http www gnu
org licenses gpl 2 0 html
extracted by the scancode license scanner the SPDX license identifier
GPL-2.0-or-later
has been chosen to replace the boilerplate/reference in 1 file(s).
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Jilayne Lovejoy <opensource@jilayne.com>
Reviewed-by: Steve Winslow <swinslow@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Allison Randal <allison@lohutok.net>
Cc: linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190519154041.430943677@linutronix.de
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
If CONFIG_WW_MUTEX_SELFTEST=y is enabled, booting an image
in an arm64 virtual machine results in the following
traceback if 8 CPUs are enabled:
DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(__owner_task(owner) != current)
WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 537 at kernel/locking/mutex.c:1033 __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x1a8/0x2e0
...
Call trace:
__mutex_unlock_slowpath()
ww_mutex_unlock()
test_cycle_work()
process_one_work()
worker_thread()
kthread()
ret_from_fork()
If requesting b_mutex fails with -EDEADLK, the error variable
is reassigned to the return value from calling ww_mutex_lock
on a_mutex again. If this call fails, a_mutex is not locked.
It is, however, unconditionally unlocked subsequently, causing
the reported warning. Fix the problem by using two error variables.
With this change, the selftest still fails as follows:
cyclic deadlock not resolved, ret[7/8] = -35
However, the traceback is gone.
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Fixes: d1b42b800e ("locking/ww_mutex: Add kselftests for resolving ww_mutex cyclic deadlocks")
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1538516929-9734-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Trivial fix to spelling mistake in pr_err() error message
Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180824112235.8842-1-colin.king@canonical.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
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-18-06-15
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: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org>
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>
Cc: David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
Co-authored-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
GFP_TEMPORARY was introduced by commit e12ba74d8f ("Group short-lived
and reclaimable kernel allocations") along with __GFP_RECLAIMABLE. It's
primary motivation was to allow users to tell that an allocation is
short lived and so the allocator can try to place such allocations close
together and prevent long term fragmentation. As much as this sounds
like a reasonable semantic it becomes much less clear when to use the
highlevel GFP_TEMPORARY allocation flag. How long is temporary? Can the
context holding that memory sleep? Can it take locks? It seems there is
no good answer for those questions.
The current implementation of GFP_TEMPORARY is basically GFP_KERNEL |
__GFP_RECLAIMABLE which in itself is tricky because basically none of
the existing caller provide a way to reclaim the allocated memory. So
this is rather misleading and hard to evaluate for any benefits.
I have checked some random users and none of them has added the flag
with a specific justification. I suspect most of them just copied from
other existing users and others just thought it might be a good idea to
use without any measuring. This suggests that GFP_TEMPORARY just
motivates for cargo cult usage without any reasoning.
I believe that our gfp flags are quite complex already and especially
those with highlevel semantic should be clearly defined to prevent from
confusion and abuse. Therefore I propose dropping GFP_TEMPORARY and
replace all existing users to simply use GFP_KERNEL. Please note that
SLAB users with shrinkers will still get __GFP_RECLAIMABLE heuristic and
so they will be placed properly for memory fragmentation prevention.
I can see reasons we might want some gfp flag to reflect shorterm
allocations but I propose starting from a clear semantic definition and
only then add users with proper justification.
This was been brought up before LSF this year by Matthew [1] and it
turned out that GFP_TEMPORARY really doesn't have a clear semantic. It
seems to be a heuristic without any measured advantage for most (if not
all) its current users. The follow up discussion has revealed that
opinions on what might be temporary allocation differ a lot between
developers. So rather than trying to tweak existing users into a
semantic which they haven't expected I propose to simply remove the flag
and start from scratch if we really need a semantic for short term
allocations.
[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170118054945.GD18349@bombadil.infradead.org
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix typo]
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: coding-style fixes]
[sfr@canb.auug.org.au: drm/i915: fix up]
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170816144703.378d4f4d@canb.auug.org.au
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170728091904.14627-1-mhocko@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Use a timeout rather than a fixed number of loops to avoid running for
very long periods, such as under the kbuilder VMs.
Reported-by: kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170310105733.6444-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Currently each thread starts an acquire context only once, and
performs all its loop iterations under it.
This means that the Wound/Wait relations between threads are fixed.
To make things a little more realistic and cover more of the
functionality with the test, open a new acquire context for each loop.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Because there are only 12 bits in held_lock::references, so we only
support 4095 nested lock held in the same time, adjust the lock number
for ww_mutex stress test to kill one lockdep splat:
[ ] [ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ]
[ ] kworker/u2:0/5 is trying to release lock (ww_class_mutex) at:
[ ] ww_mutex_unlock()
[ ] but there are no more locks to release!
...
Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Nicolai Hähnle <Nicolai.Haehnle@amd.com>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170301150138.hdixnmafzfsox7nn@tardis.cn.ibm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
When busy-spinning on a ww_mutex_trylock(), we depend upon the other
thread advancing and releasing the lock. This can not happen on a single
CPU unless we relinquish it:
[ ] NMI watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 22s! [kworker/0:1:18]
...
[ ] Call Trace:
[ ] mutex_trylock()
[ ] test_mutex_work+0x31/0x56
[ ] process_one_work+0x1b4/0x2f9
[ ] worker_thread+0x1b0/0x27c
[ ] kthread+0xd1/0xd3
[ ] ret_from_fork+0x19/0x30
Reported-by: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Fixes: f2a5fec173 ("locking/ww_mutex: Begin kselftests for ww_mutex")
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170228094011.2595-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Check that ww_mutexes can detect cyclic deadlocks (generalised ABBA
cycles) and resolve them by lock reordering.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <dev@mblankhorst.nl>
Cc: Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle@gmail.com>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161201114711.28697-7-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
