Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 17:55:44 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Nicolai =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=E4hnle?= <nhaehnle@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Nicolai =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=E4hnle?= <Nicolai.Haehnle@amd.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Maarten Lankhorst <dev@mblankhorst.nl>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/11] locking/ww_mutex: Add waiters in stamp order
Message-ID: <20161206165544.GX3045@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1480601214-26583-1-git-send-email-nhaehnle@gmail.com>
 <1480601214-26583-6-git-send-email-nhaehnle@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1480601214-26583-6-git-send-email-nhaehnle@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22.1 (2013-10-16)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2289
Lines: 61

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:06:48PM +0100, Nicolai H?hnle wrote:
> @@ -693,8 +748,12 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
>  		 * mutex_unlock() handing the lock off to us, do a trylock
>  		 * before testing the error conditions to make sure we pick up
>  		 * the handoff.
> +		 *
> +		 * For w/w locks, we always need to do this even if we're not
> +		 * currently the first waiter, because we may have been the
> +		 * first waiter during the unlock.
>  		 */
> -		if (__mutex_trylock(lock, first))
> +		if (__mutex_trylock(lock, use_ww_ctx || first))
>  			goto acquired;

So I'm somewhat uncomfortable with this. The point is that with the
.handoff logic it is very easy to accidentally allow:

	mutex_lock(&a);
	mutex_lock(&a);

And I'm not sure this doesn't make that happen for ww_mutexes. We get to
this __mutex_trylock() without first having blocked.


>  		/*
> @@ -716,7 +775,20 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
>  		spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
>  		schedule_preempt_disabled();
>  
> -		if (!first && __mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, &waiter)) {
> +		if (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx) {
> +			/*
> +			 * Always re-check whether we're in first position. We
> +			 * don't want to spin if another task with a lower
> +			 * stamp has taken our position.
> +			 *
> +			 * We also may have to set the handoff flag again, if
> +			 * our position at the head was temporarily taken away.
> +			 */
> +			first = __mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, &waiter);
> +
> +			if (first)
> +				__mutex_set_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF);
> +		} else if (!first && __mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, &waiter)) {
>  			first = true;
>  			__mutex_set_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF);
>  		}

So the point is that !ww_ctx entries are 'skipped' during the insertion
and therefore, if one becomes first, it must stay first?

> @@ -728,7 +800,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
>  		 * or we must see its unlock and acquire.
>  		 */
>  		if ((first && mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, use_ww_ctx, true)) ||
> -		     __mutex_trylock(lock, first))
> +		     __mutex_trylock(lock, use_ww_ctx || first))
>  			break;
>  
>  		spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);