Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932365AbbHCT4s (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 3 Aug 2015 15:56:48 -0400
Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:50867 "EHLO
	casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932305AbbHCT4r (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 3 Aug 2015 15:56:47 -0400
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 21:56:43 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hp.com>,
        Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] locking/pvqspinlock: Unconditional PV kick with
 _Q_SLOW_VAL
Message-ID: <20150803195643.GD25159@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1438395724-25910-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com>
 <1438395724-25910-2-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com>
 <20150801222903.GC25159@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <1438626129.17146.9.camel@stgolabs.net>
 <20150803183745.GY25159@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <1438628982.17146.20.camel@stgolabs.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1438628982.17146.20.camel@stgolabs.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1939
Lines: 56

On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 12:09:42PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-08-03 at 20:37 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > OK, so there's no 'fix'? The patch claims we can loose a wakeup and I
> > just don't see how that is true.
> 
> Taking another look, I think you could hit something like this:
> 
> CPU0 (lock):					CPU1 (unlock):
>   pv_wait_head					  __pv_queued_spin_unlock
> 						    <load ->state> [bogus ->state != halted]

I don't think this can happen, see below, IF you take the slow path, you
_must_ see halted.

>     <spin>					    smp_store_release(&l->locked, 0);
> 						    
>     WRITE_ONCE(pn->state, vcpu_halted);             
>     pv_wait(&l->locked, _Q_SLOW_VAL);		    if (->state == vcpu_halted)
> 					              pv_kick(node->cpu); <-- missing wakeup, never called
> 
> So basically you can miss a wakeup if node->state load is done while the
> locking thread is spinning and hasn't gotten a chance to update the
> state to halted. That would also imply that it occurs right when the
> threshold limit is about to be reached.

	pv_wait_head()			__pv_queued_spin_unlock()

	[S] node->state = halted
	[S] hash(lock, node)
	    MB
	[S] ->locked = SLOW
	    MB
					[L] ->locked == SLOW
					    RMB
					[L] node = unhash(lock)
					[L] node->state == halted
					    RELEASE
					[S] ->locked = 0

					   kick(node->cpu)
	   CLI
	[L] ->locked

If we don't see SLOW, nothing to be done. If we do, we _must_ then also
see ->state == halted and will kick.

And note that the load of node->state _cannot_ be pushed up further, it
depends on the load of node, which in turn depends on the load of
->locked.

So I'm still not seeing it. You cannot miss a kick.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/