Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] locking: Implement an algorithm choice for
 Wound-Wait mutexes
From:   Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
        Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
        linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
References: <20180614072922.8114-1-thellstrom@vmware.com>
 <20180614072922.8114-2-thellstrom@vmware.com>
 <20180614124129.GA12198@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <3d73590a-13de-9164-4b32-9d7da6a1055b@vmware.com>
Message-ID: <cf725c06-e0cc-d28b-d3f3-62fe59e565fe@vmware.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Jun 2018 15:18:56 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3d73590a-13de-9164-4b32-9d7da6a1055b@vmware.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: vmware.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jun 2018 13:19:11.2986 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b897670e-0af4-4c77-08bb-08d5d1f96d76
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: b39138ca-3cee-4b4a-a4d6-cd83d9dd62f0
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR05MB4581
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 06/14/2018 02:48 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> Hi, Peter,
>
> On 06/14/2018 02:41 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 09:29:21AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>>> +static bool __ww_mutex_wound(struct mutex *lock,
>>> +                 struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx,
>>> +                 struct ww_acquire_ctx *hold_ctx)
>>> +{
>>> +    struct task_struct *owner = __mutex_owner(lock);
>>> +
>>> +    lockdep_assert_held(&lock->wait_lock);
>>> +
>>> +    if (owner && hold_ctx && __ww_ctx_stamp_after(hold_ctx, ww_ctx) &&
>>> +        ww_ctx->acquired > 0) {
>>> +        hold_ctx->wounded = 1;
>>> +
>>> +        /*
>>> +         * wake_up_process() paired with set_current_state() inserts
>>> +         * sufficient barriers to make sure @owner either sees it's
>>> +         * wounded or has a wakeup pending to re-read the wounded
>>> +         * state.
>>> +         *
>>> +         * The value of hold_ctx->wounded in
>>> +         * __ww_mutex_lock_check_stamp();
>>> +         */
>>> +        if (owner != current)
>>> +            wake_up_process(owner);
>>> +
>>> +        return true;
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>> +    return false;
>>> +}
>>> @@ -338,12 +377,18 @@ ww_mutex_set_context_fastpath(struct ww_mutex 
>>> *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
>>>        * and keep spinning, or it will acquire wait_lock, add itself
>>>        * to waiter list and sleep.
>>>        */
>>> -    smp_mb(); /* ^^^ */
>>> +    smp_mb(); /* See comments above and below. */
>>>         /*
>>> -     * Check if lock is contended, if not there is nobody to wake up
>>> +     * Check if lock is contended, if not there is nobody to wake up.
>>> +     * We can use list_empty() unlocked here since it only compares a
>>> +     * list_head field pointer to the address of the list head
>>> +     * itself, similarly to how list_empty() can be considered 
>>> RCU-safe.
>>> +     * The memory barrier above pairs with the memory barrier in
>>> +     * __ww_mutex_add_waiter and makes sure lock->ctx is visible 
>>> before
>>> +     * we check for waiters.
>>>        */
>>> -    if (likely(!(atomic_long_read(&lock->base.owner) & 
>>> MUTEX_FLAG_WAITERS)))
>>> +    if (likely(list_empty(&lock->base.wait_list)))
>>>           return;
>> OK, so what happens is that if we see !empty list, we take wait_lock,
>> if we end up in __ww_mutex_wound() we must really have !empty wait-list.
>>
>> It can however still see !owner because __mutex_unlock_slowpath() can
>> clear the owner field. But if owner is set, it must stay valid because
>> FLAG_WAITERS and we're holding wait_lock.
>
> If __ww_mutex_wound() is called from ww_mutex_set_context_fastpath() 
> owner is the current process so we can never see !owner. However if 
> __ww_mutex_wound() is called from __ww_mutex_add_waiter() then the 
> above is true.

Or actually it was intended to be true, but FLAG_WAITERS is set too 
late. It needs to be moved to just after we actually add the waiter to 
the list.

Then the hunk that replaces a FLAG_WAITERS read with a lockless 
list_empty() can also be ditched.

/Thomas


>
>>
>> So the wake_up_process() is in fact safe.
>>
>> Let me put that in a comment.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Thomas
>
>