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
