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
For writers, the out_nolock path will always attempt to wake up waiters.
This may not be really necessary if the waiter to be removed is not the
first one.
For readers, no attempt to wake up waiter is being made. However, if
the HANDOFF bit is set and the reader to be removed is the first waiter,
the waiter behind it will inherit the HANDOFF bit and for a write lock
waiter waking it up will allow it to spin on the lock to acquire it
faster. So it can be beneficial to do a wakeup in this case.
Add a new rwsem_del_wake_waiter() helper function to do that consistently
for both reader and writer out_nolock paths.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220322152059.2182333-4-longman@redhat.com
In an analysis of a recent vmcore, a reader-owned rwsem was found with
385 readers but no writer in the wait queue. That is kind of unusual
but it may be caused by some race conditions that we have not fully
understood yet. In such a case, all the readers in the wait queue should
join the other reader-owners and acquire the read lock.
In rwsem_down_write_slowpath(), an incoming writer will try to
wake up the front readers under such circumstance. That is not
the case for rwsem_down_read_slowpath(), add a new helper function
rwsem_cond_wake_waiter() to do wakeup and use it in both reader and
writer slowpaths to have a consistent and correct behavior.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220322152059.2182333-3-longman@redhat.com
Since commit d257cc8cb8 ("locking/rwsem: Make handoff bit handling
more consistent"), the handoff bit is always cleared if the wait queue
becomes empty. There is no need to check for RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF when
the wait list is known to be empty.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220322152059.2182333-2-longman@redhat.com
This patch adds __sched attributes to a few missing places
to show blocked function rather than locking function
in get_wchan.
Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220115231657.84828-1-minchan@kernel.org
Move the owner_on_cpu() from kernel/locking/rwsem.c into
include/linux/sched.h with under CONFIG_SMP, then use it
in the mutex/rwsem/rtmutex to simplify the code.
Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211203075935.136808-2-wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com
We found that a process with 10 thousnads threads has been encountered
a regression problem from Linux-v4.14 to Linux-v5.4. It is a kind of
workload which will concurrently allocate lots of memory in different
threads sometimes. In this case, we will see the down_read_trylock()
with a high hotspot. Therefore, we suppose that rwsem has a regression
at least since Linux-v5.4. In order to easily debug this problem, we
write a simply benchmark to create the similar situation lile the
following.
```c++
#include <sys/mman.h>
#include <sys/time.h>
#include <sys/resource.h>
#include <sched.h>
#include <cstdio>
#include <cassert>
#include <thread>
#include <vector>
#include <chrono>
volatile int mutex;
void trigger(int cpu, char* ptr, std::size_t sz)
{
cpu_set_t set;
CPU_ZERO(&set);
CPU_SET(cpu, &set);
assert(pthread_setaffinity_np(pthread_self(), sizeof(set), &set) == 0);
while (mutex);
for (std::size_t i = 0; i < sz; i += 4096) {
*ptr = '\0';
ptr += 4096;
}
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
std::size_t sz = 100;
if (argc > 1)
sz = atoi(argv[1]);
auto nproc = std:🧵:hardware_concurrency();
std::vector<std::thread> thr;
sz <<= 30;
auto* ptr = mmap(nullptr, sz, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_ANON |
MAP_PRIVATE, -1, 0);
assert(ptr != MAP_FAILED);
char* cptr = static_cast<char*>(ptr);
auto run = sz / nproc;
run = (run >> 12) << 12;
mutex = 1;
for (auto i = 0U; i < nproc; ++i) {
thr.emplace_back(std::thread([i, cptr, run]() { trigger(i, cptr, run); }));
cptr += run;
}
rusage usage_start;
getrusage(RUSAGE_SELF, &usage_start);
auto start = std::chrono::system_clock::now();
mutex = 0;
for (auto& t : thr)
t.join();
rusage usage_end;
getrusage(RUSAGE_SELF, &usage_end);
auto end = std::chrono::system_clock::now();
timeval utime;
timeval stime;
timersub(&usage_end.ru_utime, &usage_start.ru_utime, &utime);
timersub(&usage_end.ru_stime, &usage_start.ru_stime, &stime);
printf("usr: %ld.%06ld\n", utime.tv_sec, utime.tv_usec);
printf("sys: %ld.%06ld\n", stime.tv_sec, stime.tv_usec);
printf("real: %lu\n",
std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::milliseconds>(end -
start).count());
return 0;
}
```
The functionality of above program is simply which creates `nproc`
threads and each of them are trying to touch memory (trigger page
fault) on different CPU. Then we will see the similar profile by
`perf top`.
25.55% [kernel] [k] down_read_trylock
14.78% [kernel] [k] handle_mm_fault
13.45% [kernel] [k] up_read
8.61% [kernel] [k] clear_page_erms
3.89% [kernel] [k] __do_page_fault
The highest hot instruction, which accounts for about 92%, in
down_read_trylock() is cmpxchg like the following.
91.89 │ lock cmpxchg %rdx,(%rdi)
Sice the problem is found by migrating from Linux-v4.14 to Linux-v5.4,
so we easily found that the commit ddb20d1d3a ("locking/rwsem: Optimize
down_read_trylock()") caused the regression. The reason is that the
commit assumes the rwsem is not contended at all. But it is not always
true for mmap lock which could be contended with thousands threads.
So most threads almost need to run at least 2 times of "cmpxchg" to
acquire the lock. The overhead of atomic operation is higher than
non-atomic instructions, which caused the regression.
By using the above benchmark, the real executing time on a x86-64 system
before and after the patch were:
Before Patch After Patch
# of Threads real real reduced by
------------ ------ ------ ----------
1 65,373 65,206 ~0.0%
4 15,467 15,378 ~0.5%
40 6,214 5,528 ~11.0%
For the uncontended case, the new down_read_trylock() is the same as
before. For the contended cases, the new down_read_trylock() is faster
than before. The more contended, the more fast.
Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211118094455.9068-1-songmuchun@bytedance.com
There are some inconsistency in the way that the handoff bit is being
handled in readers and writers that lead to a race condition.
Firstly, when a queue head writer set the handoff bit, it will clear
it when the writer is being killed or interrupted on its way out
without acquiring the lock. That is not the case for a queue head
reader. The handoff bit will simply be inherited by the next waiter.
Secondly, in the out_nolock path of rwsem_down_read_slowpath(), both
the waiter and handoff bits are cleared if the wait queue becomes
empty. For rwsem_down_write_slowpath(), however, the handoff bit is
not checked and cleared if the wait queue is empty. This can
potentially make the handoff bit set with empty wait queue.
Worse, the situation in rwsem_down_write_slowpath() relies on wstate,
a variable set outside of the critical section containing the ->count
manipulation, this leads to race condition where RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF
can be double subtracted, corrupting ->count.
To make the handoff bit handling more consistent and robust, extract
out handoff bit clearing code into the new rwsem_del_waiter() helper
function. Also, completely eradicate wstate; always evaluate
everything inside the same critical section.
The common function will only use atomic_long_andnot() to clear bits
when the wait queue is empty to avoid possible race condition. If the
first waiter with handoff bit set is killed or interrupted to exit the
slowpath without acquiring the lock, the next waiter will inherit the
handoff bit.
While at it, simplify the trylock for loop in
rwsem_down_write_slowpath() to make it easier to read.
Fixes: 4f23dbc1e6 ("locking/rwsem: Implement lock handoff to prevent lock starvation")
Reported-by: Zhenhua Ma <mazhenhua@xiaomi.com>
Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20211116012912.723980-1-longman@redhat.com
After the commit 617f3ef951 ("locking/rwsem: Remove reader
optimistic spinning"), reader doesn't support optimistic spinning
anymore, there is no need meet the condition which OSQ is empty.
BTW, add an unlikely() for the max reader wakeup check in the loop.
Signed-off-by: Yanfei Xu <yanfei.xu@windriver.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211013134154.1085649-4-yanfei.xu@windriver.com
preempt_disable/enable() is equal to RCU read-side crital section, and
the spinning codes in mutex and rwsem could ensure that the preemption
is disabled. So let's remove the unnecessary rcu_read_lock/unlock for
saving some cycles in hot codes.
Signed-off-by: Yanfei Xu <yanfei.xu@windriver.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211013134154.1085649-2-yanfei.xu@windriver.com
The spinning region rwsem_spin_on_owner() should not be preempted,
however the rwsem_down_write_slowpath() invokes it and don't disable
preemption. Fix it by adding a pair of preempt_disable/enable().
Signed-off-by: Yanfei Xu <yanfei.xu@windriver.com>
[peterz: Fix CONFIG_RWSEM_SPIN_ON_OWNER=n build]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211013134154.1085649-3-yanfei.xu@windriver.com
Add a ww acquire context pointer to the waiter and various functions and
add the ww_mutex related invocations to the proper spots in the locking
code, similar to the mutex based variant.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
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/20210815211304.966139174@linutronix.de
Guard the regular sleeping lock specific functionality, which is used for
rtmutex on non-RT enabled kernels and for mutex, rtmutex and semaphores on
RT enabled kernels so the code can be reused for the RT specific
implementation of spinlocks and rwlocks in a different compilation unit.
No functional change.
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/20210815211303.311535693@linutronix.de
The RT specific R/W semaphore implementation used to restrict the number of
readers to one, because a writer cannot block on multiple readers and
inherit its priority or budget.
The single reader restricting was painful in various ways:
- Performance bottleneck for multi-threaded applications in the page fault
path (mmap sem)
- Progress blocker for drivers which are carefully crafted to avoid the
potential reader/writer deadlock in mainline.
The analysis of the writer code paths shows that properly written RT tasks
should not take them. Syscalls like mmap(), file access which take mmap sem
write locked have unbound latencies, which are completely unrelated to mmap
sem. Other R/W sem users like graphics drivers are not suitable for RT tasks
either.
So there is little risk to hurt RT tasks when the RT rwsem implementation is
done in the following way:
- Allow concurrent readers
- Make writers block until the last reader left the critical section. This
blocking is not subject to priority/budget inheritance.
- Readers blocked on a writer inherit their priority/budget in the normal
way.
There is a drawback with this scheme: R/W semaphores become writer unfair
though the applications which have triggered writer starvation (mostly on
mmap_sem) in the past are not really the typical workloads running on a RT
system. So while it's unlikely to hit writer starvation, it's possible. If
there are unexpected workloads on RT systems triggering it, the problem
has to be revisited.
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/20210815211303.016885947@linutronix.de
The 2nd parameter 'count' is not used in this function.
The places where the function is called are also modified.
Signed-off-by: xuyehan <xuyehan@xiaomi.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/1625547043-28103-1-git-send-email-yehanxu1@gmail.com
Change the type and name of task_struct::state. Drop the volatile and
shrink it to an 'unsigned int'. Rename it in order to find all uses
such that we can use READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE as appropriate.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210611082838.550736351@infradead.org
Drop repeated words in kernel/events/.
{if, the, that, with, time}
Drop repeated words in kernel/locking/.
{it, no, the}
Drop repeated words in kernel/sched/.
{in, not}
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210127023412.26292-1-rdunlap@infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> [kernel/locking/]
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Reader optimistic spinning is helpful when the reader critical section
is short and there aren't that many readers around. It also improves
the chance that a reader can get the lock as writer optimistic spinning
disproportionally favors writers much more than readers.
Since commit d3681e269f ("locking/rwsem: Wake up almost all readers
in wait queue"), all the waiting readers are woken up so that they can
all get the read lock and run in parallel. When the number of contending
readers is large, allowing reader optimistic spinning will likely cause
reader fragmentation where multiple smaller groups of readers can get
the read lock in a sequential manner separated by writers. That reduces
reader parallelism.
One possible way to address that drawback is to limit the number of
readers (preferably one) that can do optimistic spinning. These readers
act as representatives of all the waiting readers in the wait queue as
they will wake up all those waiting readers once they get the lock.
Alternatively, as reader optimistic lock stealing has already enhanced
fairness to readers, it may be easier to just remove reader optimistic
spinning and simplifying the optimistic spinning code as a result.
Performance measurements (locking throughput kops/s) using a locking
microbenchmark with 50/50 reader/writer distribution and turbo-boost
disabled was done on a 2-socket Cascade Lake system (48-core 96-thread)
to see the impacts of these changes:
1) Vanilla - 5.10-rc3 kernel
2) Before - 5.10-rc3 kernel with previous patches in this series
2) limit-rspin - 5.10-rc3 kernel with limited reader spinning patch
3) no-rspin - 5.10-rc3 kernel with reader spinning disabled
# of threads CS Load Vanilla Before limit-rspin no-rspin
------------ ------- ------- ------ ----------- --------
2 1 5,185 5,662 5,214 5,077
4 1 5,107 4,983 5,188 4,760
8 1 4,782 4,564 4,720 4,628
16 1 4,680 4,053 4,567 3,402
32 1 4,299 1,115 1,118 1,098
64 1 3,218 983 1,001 957
96 1 1,938 944 957 930
2 20 2,008 2,128 2,264 1,665
4 20 1,390 1,033 1,046 1,101
8 20 1,472 1,155 1,098 1,213
16 20 1,332 1,077 1,089 1,122
32 20 967 914 917 980
64 20 787 874 891 858
96 20 730 836 847 844
2 100 372 356 360 355
4 100 492 425 434 392
8 100 533 537 529 538
16 100 548 572 568 598
32 100 499 520 527 537
64 100 466 517 526 512
96 100 406 497 506 509
The column "CS Load" represents the number of pause instructions issued
in the locking critical section. A CS load of 1 is extremely short and
is not likey in real situations. A load of 20 (moderate) and 100 (long)
are more realistic.
It can be seen that the previous patches in this series have reduced
performance in general except in highly contended cases with moderate
or long critical sections that performance improves a bit. This change
is mostly caused by the "Prevent potential lock starvation" patch that
reduce reader optimistic spinning and hence reduce reader fragmentation.
The patch that further limit reader optimistic spinning doesn't seem to
have too much impact on overall performance as shown in the benchmark
data.
The patch that disables reader optimistic spinning shows reduced
performance at lightly loaded cases, but comparable or slightly better
performance on with heavier contention.
This patch just removes reader optimistic spinning for now. As readers
are not going to do optimistic spinning anymore, we don't need to
consider if the OSQ is empty or not when doing lock stealing.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201121041416.12285-6-longman@redhat.com
If the optimistic spinning queue is empty and the rwsem does not have
the handoff or write-lock bits set, it is actually not necessary to
call rwsem_optimistic_spin() to spin on it. Instead, it can steal the
lock directly as its reader bias is in the count already. If it is
the first reader in this state, it will try to wake up other readers
in the wait queue.
With this patch applied, the following were the lock event counts
after rebooting a 2-socket system and a "make -j96" kernel rebuild.
rwsem_opt_rlock=4437
rwsem_rlock=29
rwsem_rlock_steal=19
So lock stealing represents about 0.4% of all the read locks acquired
in the slow path.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201121041416.12285-4-longman@redhat.com
The lock handoff bit is added in commit 4f23dbc1e6 ("locking/rwsem:
Implement lock handoff to prevent lock starvation") to avoid lock
starvation. However, allowing readers to do optimistic spinning does
introduce an unlikely scenario where lock starvation can happen.
The lock handoff bit may only be set when a waiter is being woken up.
In the case of reader unlock, wakeup happens only when the reader count
reaches 0. If there is a continuous stream of incoming readers acquiring
read lock via optimistic spinning, it is possible that the reader count
may never reach 0 and so the handoff bit will never be asserted.
One way to prevent this scenario from happening is to disallow optimistic
spinning if the rwsem is currently owned by readers. If the previous
or current owner is a writer, optimistic spinning will be allowed.
If the previous owner is a reader but the reader count has reached 0
before, a wakeup should have been issued. So the handoff mechanism
will be kicked in to prevent lock starvation. As a result, it should
be OK to do optimistic spinning in this case.
This patch may have some impact on reader performance as it reduces
reader optimistic spinning especially if the lock critical sections
are short the number of contending readers are small.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201121041416.12285-3-longman@redhat.com
The atomic count value right after reader count increment can be useful
to determine the rwsem state at trylock time. So the count value is
passed down to rwsem_down_read_slowpath() to be used when appropriate.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201121041416.12285-2-longman@redhat.com
In preparation for converting exec_update_mutex to a rwsem so that
multiple readers can execute in parallel and not deadlock, add
down_read_interruptible. This is needed for perf_event_open to be
converted (with no semantic changes) from working on a mutex to
wroking on a rwsem.
Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/87k0tybqfy.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org
In preparation for converting exec_update_mutex to a rwsem so that
multiple readers can execute in parallel and not deadlock, add
down_read_killable_nested. This is needed so that kcmp_lock
can be converted from working on a mutexes to working on rw_semaphores.
Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/87o8jabqh3.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org
Extend lockdep to validate lock wait-type context.
The current wait-types are:
LD_WAIT_FREE, /* wait free, rcu etc.. */
LD_WAIT_SPIN, /* spin loops, raw_spinlock_t etc.. */
LD_WAIT_CONFIG, /* CONFIG_PREEMPT_LOCK, spinlock_t etc.. */
LD_WAIT_SLEEP, /* sleeping locks, mutex_t etc.. */
Where lockdep validates that the current lock (the one being acquired)
fits in the current wait-context (as generated by the held stack).
This ensures that there is no attempt to acquire mutexes while holding
spinlocks, to acquire spinlocks while holding raw_spinlocks and so on. In
other words, its a more fancy might_sleep().
Obviously RCU made the entire ordeal more complex than a simple single
value test because RCU can be acquired in (pretty much) any context and
while it presents a context to nested locks it is not the same as it
got acquired in.
Therefore its necessary to split the wait_type into two values, one
representing the acquire (outer) and one representing the nested context
(inner). For most 'normal' locks these two are the same.
[ To make static initialization easier we have the rule that:
.outer == INV means .outer == .inner; because INV == 0. ]
It further means that its required to find the minimal .inner of the held
stack to compare against the outer of the new lock; because while 'normal'
RCU presents a CONFIG type to nested locks, if it is taken while already
holding a SPIN type it obviously doesn't relax the rules.
Below is an example output generated by the trivial test code:
raw_spin_lock(&foo);
spin_lock(&bar);
spin_unlock(&bar);
raw_spin_unlock(&foo);
[ BUG: Invalid wait context ]
-----------------------------
swapper/0/1 is trying to lock:
ffffc90000013f20 (&bar){....}-{3:3}, at: kernel_init+0xdb/0x187
other info that might help us debug this:
1 lock held by swapper/0/1:
#0: ffffc90000013ee0 (&foo){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: kernel_init+0xd1/0x187
The way to read it is to look at the new -{n,m} part in the lock
description; -{3:3} for the attempted lock, and try and match that up to
the held locks, which in this case is the one: -{2,2}.
This tells that the acquiring lock requires a more relaxed environment than
presented by the lock stack.
Currently only the normal locks and RCU are converted, the rest of the
lockdep users defaults to .inner = INV which is ignored. More conversions
can be done when desired.
The check for spinlock_t nesting is not enabled by default. It's a separate
config option for now as there are known problems which are currently
addressed. The config option allows to identify these problems and to
verify that the solutions found are indeed solving them.
The config switch will be removed and the checks will permanently enabled
once the vast majority of issues has been addressed.
[ bigeasy: Move LD_WAIT_FREE,… out of CONFIG_LOCKDEP to avoid compile
failure with CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK + !CONFIG_LOCKDEP]
[ tglx: Add the config option ]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200321113242.427089655@linutronix.de
Remove the now unused RWSEM_OWNER_UNKNOWN hack. This hack breaks
PREEMPT_RT and getting rid of it was the entire motivation for
re-writing the percpu rwsem.
The biggest problem is that it is fundamentally incompatible with any
form of Priority Inheritance, any exclusively held lock must have a
distinct owner.
Requested-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200204092228.GP14946@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
The filesystem freezer uses percpu-rwsem in a way that is effectively
write_non_owner() and achieves this with a few horrible hacks that
rely on the rwsem (!percpu) implementation.
When PREEMPT_RT replaces the rwsem implementation with a PI aware
variant this comes apart.
Remove the embedded rwsem and implement it using a waitqueue and an
atomic_t.
- make readers_block an atomic, and use it, with the waitqueue
for a blocking test-and-set write-side.
- have the read-side wait for the 'lock' state to clear.
Have the waiters use FIFO queueing and mark them (reader/writer) with
a new WQ_FLAG. Use a custom wake_function to wake either a single
writer or all readers until a writer.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200204092403.GB14879@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
As preparation for replacing the embedded rwsem, give percpu-rwsem its
own lockdep_map.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200131151539.927625541@infradead.org
The commit 91d2a812df ("locking/rwsem: Make handoff writer
optimistically spin on owner") will allow a recently woken up waiting
writer to spin on the owner. Unfortunately, if the owner happens to be
RWSEM_OWNER_UNKNOWN, the code will incorrectly spin on it leading to a
kernel crash. This is fixed by passing the proper non-spinnable bits
to rwsem_spin_on_owner() so that RWSEM_OWNER_UNKNOWN will be treated
as a non-spinnable target.
Fixes: 91d2a812df ("locking/rwsem: Make handoff writer optimistically spin on owner")
Reported-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Tested-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200115154336.8679-1-longman@redhat.com
Currently rwsems is the only locking primitive that lacks this
debug feature. Add it under CONFIG_DEBUG_RWSEMS and do the magic
checking in the locking fastpath (trylock) operation such that
we cover all cases. The unlocking part is pretty straightforward.
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190729044735.9632-1-dave@stgolabs.net
When the handoff bit is set by a writer, no other tasks other than
the setting writer itself is allowed to acquire the lock. If the
to-be-handoff'ed writer goes to sleep, there will be a wakeup latency
period where the lock is free, but no one can acquire it. That is less
than ideal.
To reduce that latency, the handoff writer will now optimistically spin
on the owner if it happens to be a on-cpu writer. It will spin until
it releases the lock and the to-be-handoff'ed writer can then acquire
the lock immediately without any delay. Of course, if the owner is not
a on-cpu writer, the to-be-handoff'ed writer will have to sleep anyway.
The optimistic spinning code is also modified to not stop spinning
when the handoff bit is set. This will prevent an occasional setting of
handoff bit from causing a bunch of optimistic spinners from entering
into the wait queue causing significant reduction in throughput.
On a 1-socket 22-core 44-thread Skylake system, the AIM7 shared_memory
workload was run with 7000 users. The throughput (jobs/min) of the
following kernels were as follows:
1) 5.2-rc6
- 8,092,486
2) 5.2-rc6 + tip's rwsem patches
- 7,567,568
3) 5.2-rc6 + tip's rwsem patches + this patch
- 7,954,545
Using perf-record(1), the %cpu time used by rwsem_down_write_slowpath(),
rwsem_down_write_failed() and their callees for the 3 kernels were 1.70%,
5.46% and 2.08% respectively.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: x86@kernel.org
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190625143913.24154-1-longman@redhat.com
Since we just reviewed read_slowpath for ACQUIRE correctness, add a
few coments to retain our findings.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
While reviewing another read_slowpath patch, both Will and I noticed
another missing ACQUIRE, namely:
X = 0;
CPU0 CPU1
rwsem_down_read()
for (;;) {
set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
X = 1;
rwsem_up_write();
rwsem_mark_wake()
atomic_long_add(adjustment, &sem->count);
smp_store_release(&waiter->task, NULL);
if (!waiter.task)
break;
...
}
r = X;
Allows 'r == 0'.
Reported-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reported-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Fixes: 1da177e4c3 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
LTP mtest06 has been observed to occasionally hit "still mapped when
deleted" and following BUG_ON on arm64.
The extra mapcount originated from pagefault handler, which handled
pagefault for vma that has already been detached. vma is detached
under mmap_sem write lock by detach_vmas_to_be_unmapped(), which
also invalidates vmacache.
When the pagefault handler (under mmap_sem read lock) calls
find_vma(), vmacache_valid() wrongly reports vmacache as valid.
After rwsem down_read() returns via 'queue empty' path (as of v5.2),
it does so without an ACQUIRE on sem->count:
down_read()
__down_read()
rwsem_down_read_failed()
__rwsem_down_read_failed_common()
raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
if (list_empty(&sem->wait_list)) {
if (atomic_long_read(&sem->count) >= 0) {
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
return sem;
The problem can be reproduced by running LTP mtest06 in a loop and
building the kernel (-j $NCPUS) in parallel. It does reproduces since
v4.20 on arm64 HPE Apollo 70 (224 CPUs, 256GB RAM, 2 nodes). It
triggers reliably in about an hour.
The patched kernel ran fine for 10+ hours.
Signed-off-by: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: dbueso@suse.de
Fixes: 4b486b535c ("locking/rwsem: Exit read lock slowpath if queue empty & no writer")
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/50b8914e20d1d62bb2dee42d342836c2c16ebee7.1563438048.git.jstancek@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
For writer, the owner value is cleared on unlock. For reader, it is
left intact on unlock for providing better debugging aid on crash dump
and the unlock of one reader may not mean the lock is free.
As a result, the owner_on_cpu() shouldn't be used on read-owner
as the task pointer value may not be valid and it might have
been freed. That is the case in rwsem_spin_on_owner(), but not in
rwsem_can_spin_on_owner(). This can lead to use-after-free error from
KASAN. For example,
BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in rwsem_down_write_slowpath
(/home/miguel/kernel/linux/kernel/locking/rwsem.c:669
/home/miguel/kernel/linux/kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1125)
Fix this by checking for RWSEM_READER_OWNED flag before calling
owner_on_cpu().
Reported-by: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.com>
Tested-by: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>
Fixes: 94a9717b3c ("locking/rwsem: Make rwsem->owner an atomic_long_t")
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/81e82d5b-5074-77e8-7204-28479bbe0df0@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
The upper bits of the count field is used as reader count. When
sufficient number of active readers are present, the most significant
bit will be set and the count becomes negative. If the number of active
readers keep on piling up, we may eventually overflow the reader counts.
This is not likely to happen unless the number of bits reserved for
reader count is reduced because those bits are need for other purpose.
To prevent this count overflow from happening, the most significant
bit is now treated as a guard bit (RWSEM_FLAG_READFAIL). Read-lock
attempts will now fail for both the fast and slow paths whenever this
bit is set. So all those extra readers will be put to sleep in the wait
list. Wakeup will not happen until the reader count reaches 0.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190520205918.22251-17-longman@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Reader optimistic spinning is helpful when the reader critical section
is short and there aren't that many readers around. It makes readers
relatively more preferred than writers. When a writer times out spinning
on a reader-owned lock and set the nospinnable bits, there are two main
reasons for that.
1) The reader critical section is long, perhaps the task sleeps after
acquiring the read lock.
2) There are just too many readers contending the lock causing it to
take a while to service all of them.
In the former case, long reader critical section will impede the progress
of writers which is usually more important for system performance.
In the later case, reader optimistic spinning tends to make the reader
groups that contain readers that acquire the lock together smaller
leading to more of them. That may hurt performance in some cases. In
other words, the setting of nonspinnable bits indicates that reader
optimistic spinning may not be helpful for those workloads that cause it.
Therefore, any writers that have observed the setting of the writer
nonspinnable bit for a given rwsem after they fail to acquire the lock
via optimistic spinning will set the reader nonspinnable bit once they
acquire the write lock. Similarly, readers that observe the setting
of reader nonspinnable bit at slowpath entry will also set the reader
nonspinnable bit when they acquire the read lock via the wakeup path.
Once the reader nonspinnable bit is on, it will only be reset when
a writer is able to acquire the rwsem in the fast path or somehow a
reader or writer in the slowpath doesn't observe the nonspinable bit.
This is to discourage reader optmistic spinning on that particular
rwsem and make writers more preferred. This adaptive disabling of reader
optimistic spinning will alleviate some of the negative side effect of
this feature.
In addition, this patch tries to make readers in the spinning queue
follow the phase-fair principle after quitting optimistic spinning
by checking if another reader has somehow acquired a read lock after
this reader enters the optimistic spinning queue. If so and the rwsem
is still reader-owned, this reader is in the right read-phase and can
attempt to acquire the lock.
On a 2-socket 40-core 80-thread Skylake system, the page_fault1 test of
the will-it-scale benchmark was run with various number of threads. The
number of operations done before reader optimistic spinning patches,
this patch and after this patch were:
Threads Before rspin Before patch After patch %change
------- ------------ ------------ ----------- -------
20 5541068 5345484 5455667 -3.5%/ +2.1%
40 10185150 7292313 9219276 -28.5%/+26.4%
60 8196733 6460517 7181209 -21.2%/+11.2%
80 9508864 6739559 8107025 -29.1%/+20.3%
This patch doesn't recover all the lost performance, but it is more
than half. Given the fact that reader optimistic spinning does benefit
some workloads, this is a good compromise.
Using the rwsem locking microbenchmark with very short critical section,
this patch doesn't have too much impact on locking performance as shown
by the locking rates (kops/s) below with equal numbers of readers and
writers before and after this patch:
# of Threads Pre-patch Post-patch
------------ --------- ----------
2 4,730 4,969
4 4,814 4,786
8 4,866 4,815
16 4,715 4,511
32 3,338 3,500
64 3,212 3,389
80 3,110 3,044
When running the locking microbenchmark with 40 dedicated reader and writer
threads, however, the reader performance is curtailed to favor the writer.
Before patch:
40 readers, Iterations Min/Mean/Max = 204,026/234,309/254,816
40 writers, Iterations Min/Mean/Max = 88,515/95,884/115,644
After patch:
40 readers, Iterations Min/Mean/Max = 33,813/35,260/36,791
40 writers, Iterations Min/Mean/Max = 95,368/96,565/97,798
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190520205918.22251-16-longman@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
When the rwsem is owned by reader, writers stop optimistic spinning
simply because there is no easy way to figure out if all the readers
are actively running or not. However, there are scenarios where
the readers are unlikely to sleep and optimistic spinning can help
performance.
This patch provides a simple mechanism for spinning on a reader-owned
rwsem by a writer. It is a time threshold based spinning where the
allowable spinning time can vary from 10us to 25us depending on the
condition of the rwsem.
When the time threshold is exceeded, the nonspinnable bits will be set
in the owner field to indicate that no more optimistic spinning will
be allowed on this rwsem until it becomes writer owned again. Not even
readers is allowed to acquire the reader-locked rwsem by optimistic
spinning for fairness.
We also want a writer to acquire the lock after the readers hold the
lock for a relatively long time. In order to give preference to writers
under such a circumstance, the single RWSEM_NONSPINNABLE bit is now split
into two - one for reader and one for writer. When optimistic spinning
is disabled, both bits will be set. When the reader count drop down
to 0, the writer nonspinnable bit will be cleared to allow writers to
spin on the lock, but not the readers. When a writer acquires the lock,
it will write its own task structure pointer into sem->owner and clear
the reader nonspinnable bit in the process.
The time taken for each iteration of the reader-owned rwsem spinning
loop varies. Below are sample minimum elapsed times for 16 iterations
of the loop.
System Time for 16 Iterations
------ ----------------------
1-socket Skylake ~800ns
4-socket Broadwell ~300ns
2-socket ThunderX2 (arm64) ~250ns
When the lock cacheline is contended, we can see up to almost 10X
increase in elapsed time. So 25us will be at most 500, 1300 and 1600
iterations for each of the above systems.
With a locking microbenchmark running on 5.1 based kernel, the total
locking rates (in kops/s) on a 8-socket IvyBridge-EX system with
equal numbers of readers and writers before and after this patch were
as follows:
# of Threads Pre-patch Post-patch
------------ --------- ----------
2 1,759 6,684
4 1,684 6,738
8 1,074 7,222
16 900 7,163
32 458 7,316
64 208 520
128 168 425
240 143 474
This patch gives a big boost in performance for mixed reader/writer
workloads.
With 32 locking threads, the rwsem lock event data were:
rwsem_opt_fail=79850
rwsem_opt_nospin=5069
rwsem_opt_rlock=597484
rwsem_opt_wlock=957339
rwsem_sleep_reader=57782
rwsem_sleep_writer=55663
With 64 locking threads, the data looked like:
rwsem_opt_fail=346723
rwsem_opt_nospin=6293
rwsem_opt_rlock=1127119
rwsem_opt_wlock=1400628
rwsem_sleep_reader=308201
rwsem_sleep_writer=72281
So a lot more threads acquired the lock in the slowpath and more threads
went to sleep.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190520205918.22251-15-longman@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
The rwsem->owner contains not just the task structure pointer, it also
holds some flags for storing the current state of the rwsem. Some of
the flags may have to be atomically updated. To reflect the new reality,
the owner is now changed to an atomic_long_t type.
New helper functions are added to properly separate out the task
structure pointer and the embedded flags.
Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190520205918.22251-14-longman@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
This patch enables readers to optimistically spin on a
rwsem when it is owned by a writer instead of going to sleep
directly. The rwsem_can_spin_on_owner() function is extracted
out of rwsem_optimistic_spin() and is called directly by
rwsem_down_read_slowpath() and rwsem_down_write_slowpath().
With a locking microbenchmark running on 5.1 based kernel, the total
locking rates (in kops/s) on a 8-socket IvyBrige-EX system with equal
numbers of readers and writers before and after the patch were as
follows:
# of Threads Pre-patch Post-patch
------------ --------- ----------
4 1,674 1,684
8 1,062 1,074
16 924 900
32 300 458
64 195 208
128 164 168
240 149 143
The performance change wasn't significant in this case, but this change
is required by a follow-on patch.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190520205918.22251-13-longman@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Bit 1 of sem->owner (RWSEM_ANONYMOUSLY_OWNED) is used to designate an
anonymous owner - readers or an anonymous writer. The setting of this
anonymous bit is used as an indicator that optimistic spinning cannot
be done on this rwsem.
With the upcoming reader optimistic spinning patches, a reader-owned
rwsem can be spinned on for a limit period of time. We still need
this bit to indicate a rwsem is nonspinnable, but not setting this
bit loses its meaning that the owner is known. So rename the bit
to RWSEM_NONSPINNABLE to clarify its meaning.
This patch also fixes a DEBUG_RWSEMS_WARN_ON() bug in __up_write().
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190520205918.22251-12-longman@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
When the front of the wait queue is a reader, other readers
immediately following the first reader will also be woken up at the
same time. However, if there is a writer in between. Those readers
behind the writer will not be woken up.
Because of optimistic spinning, the lock acquisition order is not FIFO
anyway. The lock handoff mechanism will ensure that lock starvation
will not happen.
Assuming that the lock hold times of the other readers still in the
queue will be about the same as the readers that are being woken up,
there is really not much additional cost other than the additional
latency due to the wakeup of additional tasks by the waker. Therefore
all the readers up to a maximum of 256 in the queue are woken up when
the first waiter is a reader to improve reader throughput. This is
somewhat similar in concept to a phase-fair R/W lock.
With a locking microbenchmark running on 5.1 based kernel, the total
locking rates (in kops/s) on a 8-socket IvyBridge-EX system with
equal numbers of readers and writers before and after this patch were
as follows:
# of Threads Pre-Patch Post-patch
------------ --------- ----------
4 1,641 1,674
8 731 1,062
16 564 924
32 78 300
64 38 195
240 50 149
There is no performance gain at low contention level. At high contention
level, however, this patch gives a pretty decent performance boost.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190520205918.22251-11-longman@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
